No, yet another court order says that NSA has to retain the records for the purposes of a lawsuit. This one was filed by EFF, asking the court to stop the deletion of data as per the court order in this slashdot story. The EFF lawyer actually says that The March 7 FISC ruling was “based on a mistaken belief that no preservation order existed for the material,” Cohn said.
This new order was in San Fransisco and not a FISC court.
It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.
You'd say that until you get into a Saab and find that the ignition is by the gear lever or get into a Toyota echo and find the speedo in the center of the dash. I like both, but most people hate the arrangement.
* Designed with the new mobile lifestyle in mind
Compared to the previous immobile lifestyle ? Who does Microsoft think they are? Jesus Christ ? http://biblehub.com/john/5-8.h...
Not necessarily true A diet with near zero fruits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet) works even better than Mediterranean diet. The study also says nothing about bread,grains and pasta. Also note that Mice, one of the test subjects, don't fit well in the fruitarian diet.
Apparently the prisoners do not get TV/Books in the cell, nor can they see what all the noise around their cell is. Fixing solitary does not mean allowing physical access.
Books/newspapers or TV would go a long way. A computer with internet would be even better. Plexiglass door and a curtain would also help a lot.
If a person is afraid for their own safety from other inmates, he should not have to choose between total isolation and physical harm. Similarly, mentally unstable should also not be punished with isolation - that just makes their mental situation worse. Even as punishment, I would think that someone locked up for more than a week should get at least a book to read.
Irony is that Projjal Dutta works on Madison Avenue (http://web.mta.info/sustainability/index.html?c=feed), instead of Harlem as his recommendation would imply.
However, he routinely intentionally didn't fix bugs so that he could make a big show of getting up in the middle of the night to manually run processes, and would get praise and rewards from the manager.
I think you are looking at this wrong (or being too negative).
1) What you described might actually be a great strategy in a job where mobility is low. But in a career like IT, where it is so easy to move up or to switch jobs. it actually works poorly. If you (ie the coworker) are seen as the only one who can get the job done, you are likely not to be promoted (because no one else can replace you). You may get raises for a while, but after a point your job is just going to get outsourced when they figure that an outsourced company (or often an app in the cloud nowadays) is cheaper than your salary.
2) You and your coworker get 24 hours in a day. If that guy comes in to office, sits around and then goes into firefighting mode in the night, he is just spending more time per day on the job. You should ideally be happy that you are so much more efficient and get to spend time with family/hobbies etc. while the other "panic man" does not. You work 8 hours a day and get paid 8*wage per hour. At the very best case, the other guy works 10 hours and get paid 10*wage per hour. Often the other guy makes less than average hourly wage on the time he spends in the middle of the night, eventhough rationally night wages should be higher than day wages. Pay rarely scales linearly.
3) Most people who act like your coworker I describe (in my experience) are not actually cynically causing problems to be a "hero". They more often are just procrastinating or being lazy. I know this because I often do this on stuff when no one other than me is involved -- I know there is a problem, I know how long it will take to fix, but the solution is not elegant/too hairy/causes disruption in whatever other cool stuff I am doing etc. Or sometimes I just don't know how to fix something and I don't know who to ask. So I put it off and then something breaks and I have to fix it in a panic in the middle of the night. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Of course none of this applies if your job satisfaction depends on how are perceived relative to your coworker. Switching to an absolute measure for your personal goal ie,I will aim to make 100K this year rather than aiming to be praised more than the coworker might help. (This sometimes works for me, not saying it might work for you).Or try adding your hobbies or other uses of personal time into your career goals like "I will aim to be a better parent to my children while also ensuring that I earn enough money his college fund".
Well if the supreme court rejects it (ie refuses to hear the case), the lower courts ruling stands.
If the supreme court hears it, but says metadata collection is legal, then it becomes admissible evidence in court. So FBI/DEA/local police etc. can legitimately request it.
I cannot think of a way in which this data is considered OK (ie data is public), but the aggregation of data is private and cannot be seen in any court other than one court. But then I am not a lawyer or a judge.
Supreme court has previously ruled that addresses on envelopes are legal to collect even if the contents of the envelope are private. This was one of administrations justifications for the data collection.
A very crude analogy would be a Fourier transform. If you take a simple wave it is very complicated to describe it in time domain (lots of terms mathematically), but it has a simple mathematical expression in frequency domain with just a single term.
The physicists have figured out how to simplify the maths. This transformation also has a physical interpretation which is best explained as a hologram. A hologram has information from 3 dimensions scrunched into 2 dimensions, ie when you look at a hologram, it appears to have depth. In a common hologram sticker, that information is encoded in polarization. In the same manner, they seem to say information in a 11 Dimensional world can be scrunched into lesser number of dimensions. Hence the analogy.
I think you missed a bit there.
Any simulation of the world will be as complex as the original. So if you build a full simulation of the real world, you'd double the information complexity of the world. So that wouldn't work.
One thing that might work is if you simulate regions of the "world" just in time -ie the things you see are being simulated as you look for them. That ties that simulation to a Matrix like world - each person effectively has his own world and they can be independent of each other.
Another possibility is that we are in a limited simulation - some have said that quantum theory shows the graininess of the simulation and that relativistic speed limits limit the size of the canvas on which the world is being painted (ie you only have to simulate as far as the edge of the canvas, nothing outside it affects whatever is inside).
In either of these cases, you cannot (be guaranteed to be able to) run a simulation within a simulation.
It may be a fact, but it tells me nothing.
18 wheelers can weigh anywhere between 10-50 tons. A pickup anywhere from 0.5-3 tons. Difference in weights between random 18 wheelers is greater than the difference of weights between an average pickup truck and an average 18 wheeler. Does not mean pickups and 18 wheelers cannot be told apart by only using weight as a measure.
One thing that may add to your assertion would be if you could say that the ranges of these different samples also overlap. What is your data?
Actually, I think this is a case where Scott Adams missed a subtlety.
He thinks "If it weren't for the politicians who forbid me and the doctors, my father would not be suffering.They cause pain on a massive scale. So I can turn the tables and be no more evil than them. So I wish death on them all.". This is the same as saying, I killed him because he was trying to kill me/my loved ones.
The thing he misses is that the politicians did not compel you to torture your parents. Scott Adams still has the liberty to violate the law and kill his parents - he will suffer the consequences (and probably jailed). So the choice is not really between killing his dad/killing politicians, but really between jail time or not. So he is not justified in asking for the death of politicians - turning things around would be to wish jail time on them.
The furthest subtlety is that because the politicians he hates describe euthanasia as immoral, Scott Adams believes it to be immoral. He refuses to break the law, even if he is opposed to it.
75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer.
Yeah, how am I going to hand my keys to my computer? It does not even have arms. If they had asked if they could drive better than a robot maybe they would have gotten better results.
Actually, it is a trade-off between cost of real estate and cost of time in most places. In NY for example, housing is very expensive. So millions commute to the city, but far less actually live there. People are OK spending 3-4 hours in traffic or in trains because increased rentals in NY are more expensive than the money they could make by working those 3-4 hours.
NY city actually wants exactly this, so they subsidize the trains, encouraging people to commute in. If they increased prices and imposed tolls on road, jobs would move out of the city into suburbs as wages in city rose to account for the tolls.
Some have reasoned that this is exactly the outcome we want, i.e. people living close to their jobs in a spread out environment. But it seems that cities have strong network effects and having all the people close together allows them to produce more than if they had been spread out. Hence, it is OK to not optimize the prices/tolls on roads.
Car insurance would exist, but it would not necessarily be mandatory.
Only third party insurance is mandatory in most states (and indeed most countries) -ie - someone has to pay if you drive a $2000 car onto a million dollar Bugatti. If your $2000 dollar car was vandalized once every 20 years or so, you may decide that you don't need to cover that. This is what I do - cover through insurance all the damage I might do to others, but buy a car cheap enough that I don't need to worry about cost of damage to it. I know the maximum loss I can have on the car and know I can get another like it for cheap.
Not in this case.The law is that you can't lobby after you leave the government (for two years). In this case, it is the other way around. He was a lobbyist a few years ago (basically a head of a trade group). Now he is an investor.
I think this appointment goes with the idea that government is there to maximize profits for the nation. What better way to increase Cable profits than to appoint a cable lobbyist to regulate Cable TV ? What better way to maximize banking profits than to appoint a bank CEO to Treasury secretary? No one ever complains when a ex-military person becomes secretary of state or even the president...
NOTE:The above mentioned are not necessarily my views. But I do see a rational method to this madness.
I am not a party to the argument, so can you at least point me to the post ? I am genuinely interested in how public spectrum could be managed without a central authority. Internet needs no regulation, because cables are not a limited quantity. Neither does cable (except for censoring nudity or what not; which I don't necessarily agree with).
But what alternative is there to FCC in managing radio/wireless spectrum?
If there is no buyer, the market maker buys at a lower price.
HFT is a middleman.
I think your two statements answer the whole thing. Marketmaker was the middleman. Nowadays HFTs are the middleman. HFTs act as marketmakers. There is no difference.
In earlier days there were fixed brokerage commissions. The market makers (humans) could make a living trading just a few stocks. After fixed fees were removed, the fees continuously dwindled. In early 2001, the SEC accused market makers of collusion and introduced tick sizes smaller than 1/8th of a point. This reduced market maker profits even more. The only way to make any money being middleman was to trade in a lot more stocks. So HFT was left as the last man standing
If you want to buy a single stock of Google, prior to 1975, you would pay about $60 in commissions (http://www.ehow.com/about_6628927_standard-commission-brokerage-accounts_.html).If Google was trading at $1000, you could only buy it at $1060 and sell it at $940 or so (if you traded a single stock). From then on the fees kept dwindling. But you would always pay 1/8th of a point to the market maker. (http://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/nd21a-appx.txt). Finally as even that got removed, you end up in the situation where you can trade Google at $1000.01 + ~3 dollars in brokerage.
On a per trade basis, HFTs make far less money than Market makers ever did.
What has changed is this. In 1970s, only the rich or the professionals (mutual funds) traded stocks. As fees reduced, more people started trading. This meant that as an overall pool, the fees did not fall as steeply as the brokerage commissions would indicate. Humans could not capture all of it standing in the middle of the pit, they needed computers to do it.
This is same as what happened in airlines. As fixed costs were removed, low cost airlines were introduced. As this happened, price comparison sites popped up, decreasing costs even more. As costs fell, more people started flying. So even if Airlines make less per seat, they probably make more in total dollar terms.
The article clearly says it is not Silica.
The users make desomorphine by cooking Codeine with phosphorous (matchsticks), gasoline and a few other chemicals. Silica is, on that scale, very harmless.Phosphorous will react with practically anything organic next to it. Gasoline in blood kills every cell it touches (and breaks blood vessels in the case of Krokodil). Silica will clog the arteries and dry out blood, but it is not half as bad as others.
Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
No, but I do not pour it down my crotch either. Coffee is meant to be made with boiled water, which if poured down the pants, burns. Coffee made with unboiled water does taste different (bad, in my opinion).
I am waiting for someone to burn their beard with a cigarette lighter and then sue Zippo for not putting a label saying "Contents inflammable, do not light anything with it".
Slashdot Mirror
No, yet another court order says that NSA has to retain the records for the purposes of a lawsuit. This one was filed by EFF, asking the court to stop the deletion of data as per the court order in this slashdot story. The EFF lawyer actually says that
The March 7 FISC ruling was “based on a mistaken belief that no preservation order existed for the material,” Cohn said.
This new order was in San Fransisco and not a FISC court.
It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.
You'd say that until you get into a Saab and find that the ignition is by the gear lever or get into a Toyota echo and find the speedo in the center of the dash. I like both, but most people hate the arrangement.
* Designed with the new mobile lifestyle in mind
Compared to the previous immobile lifestyle ? Who does Microsoft think they are? Jesus Christ ? http://biblehub.com/john/5-8.h...
Not necessarily true
A diet with near zero fruits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet) works even better than Mediterranean diet.
The study also says nothing about bread,grains and pasta. Also note that Mice, one of the test subjects, don't fit well in the fruitarian diet.
Apparently the prisoners do not get TV/Books in the cell, nor can they see what all the noise around their cell is. Fixing solitary does not mean allowing physical access.
Books/newspapers or TV would go a long way. A computer with internet would be even better. Plexiglass door and a curtain would also help a lot.
If a person is afraid for their own safety from other inmates, he should not have to choose between total isolation and physical harm. Similarly, mentally unstable should also not be punished with isolation - that just makes their mental situation worse. Even as punishment, I would think that someone locked up for more than a week should get at least a book to read.
Irony is that Projjal Dutta works on Madison Avenue (http://web.mta.info/sustainability/index.html?c=feed), instead of Harlem as his recommendation would imply.
However, he routinely intentionally didn't fix bugs so that he could make a big show of getting up in the middle of the night to manually run processes, and would get praise and rewards from the manager. ,I will aim to make 100K this year rather than aiming to be praised more than the coworker might help. (This sometimes works for me, not saying it might work for you) .Or try adding your hobbies or other uses of personal time into your career goals like "I will aim to be a better parent to my children while also ensuring that I earn enough money his college fund".
I think you are looking at this wrong (or being too negative).
1) What you described might actually be a great strategy in a job where mobility is low. But in a career like IT, where it is so easy to move up or to switch jobs. it actually works poorly. If you (ie the coworker) are seen as the only one who can get the job done, you are likely not to be promoted (because no one else can replace you). You may get raises for a while, but after a point your job is just going to get outsourced when they figure that an outsourced company (or often an app in the cloud nowadays) is cheaper than your salary.
2) You and your coworker get 24 hours in a day. If that guy comes in to office, sits around and then goes into firefighting mode in the night, he is just spending more time per day on the job. You should ideally be happy that you are so much more efficient and get to spend time with family/hobbies etc. while the other "panic man" does not. You work 8 hours a day and get paid 8*wage per hour. At the very best case, the other guy works 10 hours and get paid 10*wage per hour. Often the other guy makes less than average hourly wage on the time he spends in the middle of the night, eventhough rationally night wages should be higher than day wages. Pay rarely scales linearly.
3) Most people who act like your coworker I describe (in my experience) are not actually cynically causing problems to be a "hero". They more often are just procrastinating or being lazy. I know this because I often do this on stuff when no one other than me is involved -- I know there is a problem, I know how long it will take to fix, but the solution is not elegant/too hairy/causes disruption in whatever other cool stuff I am doing etc. Or sometimes I just don't know how to fix something and I don't know who to ask. So I put it off and then something breaks and I have to fix it in a panic in the middle of the night. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Of course none of this applies if your job satisfaction depends on how are perceived relative to your coworker. Switching to an absolute measure for your personal goal ie
Well if the supreme court rejects it (ie refuses to hear the case), the lower courts ruling stands.
If the supreme court hears it, but says metadata collection is legal, then it becomes admissible evidence in court. So FBI/DEA/local police etc. can legitimately request it.
I cannot think of a way in which this data is considered OK (ie data is public), but the aggregation of data is private and cannot be seen in any court other than one court. But then I am not a lawyer or a judge.
Supreme court has previously ruled that addresses on envelopes are legal to collect even if the contents of the envelope are private. This was one of administrations justifications for the data collection.
A very crude analogy would be a Fourier transform. If you take a simple wave it is very complicated to describe it in time domain (lots of terms mathematically), but it has a simple mathematical expression in frequency domain with just a single term.
The physicists have figured out how to simplify the maths. This transformation also has a physical interpretation which is best explained as a hologram. A hologram has information from 3 dimensions scrunched into 2 dimensions, ie when you look at a hologram, it appears to have depth. In a common hologram sticker, that information is encoded in polarization. In the same manner, they seem to say information in a 11 Dimensional world can be scrunched into lesser number of dimensions. Hence the analogy.
I think you missed a bit there.
Any simulation of the world will be as complex as the original. So if you build a full simulation of the real world, you'd double the information complexity of the world. So that wouldn't work.
One thing that might work is if you simulate regions of the "world" just in time -ie the things you see are being simulated as you look for them. That ties that simulation to a Matrix like world - each person effectively has his own world and they can be independent of each other.
Another possibility is that we are in a limited simulation - some have said that quantum theory shows the graininess of the simulation and that relativistic speed limits limit the size of the canvas on which the world is being painted (ie you only have to simulate as far as the edge of the canvas, nothing outside it affects whatever is inside).
In either of these cases, you cannot (be guaranteed to be able to) run a simulation within a simulation.
http://www.gvst.co.uk/gsnap.htm
It may be a fact, but it tells me nothing.
18 wheelers can weigh anywhere between 10-50 tons. A pickup anywhere from 0.5-3 tons. Difference in weights between random 18 wheelers is greater than the difference of weights between an average pickup truck and an average 18 wheeler. Does not mean pickups and 18 wheelers cannot be told apart by only using weight as a measure.
One thing that may add to your assertion would be if you could say that the ranges of these different samples also overlap. What is your data?
Actually, I think this is a case where Scott Adams missed a subtlety.
He thinks "If it weren't for the politicians who forbid me and the doctors, my father would not be suffering.They cause pain on a massive scale. So I can turn the tables and be no more evil than them. So I wish death on them all.". This is the same as saying, I killed him because he was trying to kill me/my loved ones.
The thing he misses is that the politicians did not compel you to torture your parents. Scott Adams still has the liberty to violate the law and kill his parents - he will suffer the consequences (and probably jailed). So the choice is not really between killing his dad/killing politicians, but really between jail time or not. So he is not justified in asking for the death of politicians - turning things around would be to wish jail time on them.
The furthest subtlety is that because the politicians he hates describe euthanasia as immoral, Scott Adams believes it to be immoral. He refuses to break the law, even if he is opposed to it.
They were looking for 3 bars on their phone and they only had two.
75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer.
Yeah, how am I going to hand my keys to my computer? It does not even have arms. If they had asked if they could drive better than a robot maybe they would have gotten better results.
Actually, it is a trade-off between cost of real estate and cost of time in most places. In NY for example, housing is very expensive. So millions commute to the city, but far less actually live there. People are OK spending 3-4 hours in traffic or in trains because increased rentals in NY are more expensive than the money they could make by working those 3-4 hours.
NY city actually wants exactly this, so they subsidize the trains, encouraging people to commute in. If they increased prices and imposed tolls on road, jobs would move out of the city into suburbs as wages in city rose to account for the tolls.
Some have reasoned that this is exactly the outcome we want, i.e. people living close to their jobs in a spread out environment. But it seems that cities have strong network effects and having all the people close together allows them to produce more than if they had been spread out. Hence, it is OK to not optimize the prices/tolls on roads.
Car insurance would exist, but it would not necessarily be mandatory.
Only third party insurance is mandatory in most states (and indeed most countries) -ie - someone has to pay if you drive a $2000 car onto a million dollar Bugatti. If your $2000 dollar car was vandalized once every 20 years or so, you may decide that you don't need to cover that.
This is what I do - cover through insurance all the damage I might do to others, but buy a car cheap enough that I don't need to worry about cost of damage to it. I know the maximum loss I can have on the car and know I can get another like it for cheap.
Japan has a presence "near" Mars too. They got their probe all the way there, but could not put it into Mars orbit.
thx
Not in this case.The law is that you can't lobby after you leave the government (for two years). In this case, it is the other way around. He was a lobbyist a few years ago (basically a head of a trade group). Now he is an investor.
I think this appointment goes with the idea that government is there to maximize profits for the nation. What better way to increase Cable profits than to appoint a cable lobbyist to regulate Cable TV ? What better way to maximize banking profits than to appoint a bank CEO to Treasury secretary? No one ever complains when a ex-military person becomes secretary of state or even the president...
NOTE:The above mentioned are not necessarily my views. But I do see a rational method to this madness.
I am not a party to the argument, so can you at least point me to the post ? I am genuinely interested in how public spectrum could be managed without a central authority.
Internet needs no regulation, because cables are not a limited quantity. Neither does cable (except for censoring nudity or what not; which I don't necessarily agree with).
But what alternative is there to FCC in managing radio/wireless spectrum?
Even better, if there is a third world war, you wouldn't be around to see the end of it. So no negative outcomes, only positives out of that attitude.
If there is no buyer, the market maker buys at a lower price.
HFT is a middleman.
I think your two statements answer the whole thing. Marketmaker was the middleman. Nowadays HFTs are the middleman. HFTs act as marketmakers. There is no difference.
In earlier days there were fixed brokerage commissions. The market makers (humans) could make a living trading just a few stocks. After fixed fees were removed, the fees continuously dwindled. In early 2001, the SEC accused market makers of collusion and introduced tick sizes smaller than 1/8th of a point. This reduced market maker profits even more. The only way to make any money being middleman was to trade in a lot more stocks. So HFT was left as the last man standing
If you want to buy a single stock of Google, prior to 1975, you would pay about $60 in commissions (http://www.ehow.com/about_6628927_standard-commission-brokerage-accounts_.html).If Google was trading at $1000, you could only buy it at $1060 and sell it at $940 or so (if you traded a single stock). From then on the fees kept dwindling. But you would always pay 1/8th of a point to the market maker. (http://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/nd21a-appx.txt). Finally as even that got removed, you end up in the situation where you can trade Google at $1000.01 + ~3 dollars in brokerage.
On a per trade basis, HFTs make far less money than Market makers ever did.
What has changed is this. In 1970s, only the rich or the professionals (mutual funds) traded stocks. As fees reduced, more people started trading. This meant that as an overall pool, the fees did not fall as steeply as the brokerage commissions would indicate. Humans could not capture all of it standing in the middle of the pit, they needed computers to do it.
This is same as what happened in airlines. As fixed costs were removed, low cost airlines were introduced. As this happened, price comparison sites popped up, decreasing costs even more. As costs fell, more people started flying. So even if Airlines make less per seat, they probably make more in total dollar terms.
The article clearly says it is not Silica.
The users make desomorphine by cooking Codeine with phosphorous (matchsticks), gasoline and a few other chemicals. Silica is, on that scale, very harmless.Phosphorous will react with practically anything organic next to it. Gasoline in blood kills every cell it touches (and breaks blood vessels in the case of Krokodil). Silica will clog the arteries and dry out blood, but it is not half as bad as others.
Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
No, but I do not pour it down my crotch either. Coffee is meant to be made with boiled water, which if poured down the pants, burns. Coffee made with unboiled water does taste different (bad, in my opinion).
I am waiting for someone to burn their beard with a cigarette lighter and then sue Zippo for not putting a label saying "Contents inflammable, do not light anything with it".