I appreciate the wisdom of your reasoning. It is an effective way to deal with incomplete information. But the crucial part of what you consider unknown about climatology is not unknown. It is known, knowable, proven fact.
"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)
This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question, of a sort that physics theory was just then beginning to learn how to attack: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface and warms it up, why doesn't the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier's answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space. But when he calculated the effect with his new theoretical tools, he got a temperature well below freezing, much colder than the actual Earth.(9a*)
The difference, Fourier recognized, was due to the Earth's atmosphere. Somehow it kept part of the heat radiation in. He tried to explain this by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (The main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away, although the glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping.) Nevertheless, trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)
Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation.
This can now be proved in any respectable chem lab.
Roger Wilco:
There are also clues that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two, but as I understand that's less clear.
Marc Morano, Jim Inhoffe and the Viscount #3 of Brenchley, so-called "Christopher Monckton" and their corporate overlords would very much like for us to believe that, but it simply isn't so. As in any field of science broad enough to be its own field, some things remain to be determined. Some of the coupling constants in the Global Circulation Models are known with higher confidence than others. But the first order effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is absolutely not one of the things that remains to be determined. It is known, and has been a known fact since the 19th century. Later, quantum mechanics told us why this is so; certain wavelengths correspond to heat, and carbon dioxide refuses to emit wavelength at a significant portion of the
Rotates on its axis once every 59 Earth days, but because of its slow rotation and fast speed
around the Sun, one solar day (from noon to noon at the same place) lasts 176 Earth days,
or two Mercury years
Although I'd say the article is clearer, both the article and Wikipedia are technically correct because Wikipedia talks about three rotations, not days. Calculating the length of a solar day on Mercury requires accounting for the orientation of a point on Mercury to the Sun; as Mercury rotates once, it also travels through 59/88 of an orbit, so one rotation != one solar day on Mercury and the article and Wikipedia are not in contradiction, they just tell different parts of the story. Hope this helps.
... to seconds or maybe even minutes, so that the speculative adventures at NYSE, FTSE, Nikkei, etc. will diminish to faint white noise superposed on the stable, slowly & steadily increasing baseline known as "the real economy."
The purpose of a financial sector is to facilitate the efficiency of the real economy, full stop. Under current U.S. law, the financial sector is so corrupt and governed so incompetently that its activities, exchanging certificates of things of real value, that between intervals of relatively steady growth, there are frequent major events that significantly retard the real economy for significant intervals, but shorter intervals than the intervals of growth. So, averaged over very long times, or compressed so that many of these cycles occur much more rapidly, they should in fact average out to stable growth and fluctuations that look like soft white noise, which is the most that we would ever have heard from Wall Street if those crooks and idiots had ever known how to do any real work.
So, Wall Street IT guys, if you believe you can absolutely guarantee that the result of this will be a more stable financial sector which will no longer interfere with the real economy EVER, then feel free to run it past Elizabeth Warren, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Nicholas Nasim Taleb to validate your AMATEUR analysis. But if you cannot ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that this will reduce, not increase the risk to the rest of us from Wall Street, then don't even think about it. Not even for a picosecond.
The difference, and the reason your analogy is shit, is that aeronautical engineers don't claim to know the existence and smoothness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations in R3.
The difference, and the reason your analogy is shit, is that aeronautical engineers don't claim to know the existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equations in R3. If you ask them, they're honest about which of their equations are just assumptions and why they believe they're valid assumptions. What economists, especially those employed by corporate lobbying firms, have been claiming to anybody with a microphone and camera or a steno pad for decades, is that more trading is always good because, they claim, market actors rationally pursue profit while having "perfect information" about the things they're trading. This paper does prove the latter assumption invalid for these classes of speculative trade. So please, make some more sweeping generalizations about what you stupidly assume that I don't know, jackass.
Okay, then. In my opinion, the color of Steve Ballmer's socks is responsible for Scott Walker, Koch Industries, the explosion of BP's Maconda Well, the disinformation from "Curveball" that the Junior Bush administration chose to use as the pretext for Operation Iraqi Liberation, the increasing rate of unemployment in the United States as well as all the very-long-term-unemployed who no longer qualify to even be included in the "official" unemployment statistics, and, oh yeah, exceptions to H1-B law obtained by Microsoft under false pretenses. I realize some of those connections are a bit tenuous, but Bill Gates certainly didn't use his best judgment when he lied in an op-ed in the Washington Post, in an interview with David Broder, and every time he testified to Congress that the "talent" Microsoft seeks just isn't available in the United States. Maybe Steve Ballmer's socks were playing tricks on his mind. Or maybe he's just a douchebag.
While I sense a great deal of sarcasm in this thread, it is worth noting that speculation actually can result in positive return over long periods of time. Some people are very good trader/gamblers and their talents shouldn't be denied. But the problem comes when you have high leverage amplifying all the risks of the market and the business.
Totally agree. I almost said the same thing, but just wanted to be sure not to say too much. I tend to go on a bit, you see.:-)
But since somebody is interested, I'll say that a very important distinction is knowing the odds and playing them smartly, versus guessing the odds skillfully/luckily. Over time, luck always runs out eventually. So says the Strong Law of Large Numbers.
High leverage where one borrows staggering amounts of money (something like 50 borrowed dollars to 1 dollar of assets was common in the recent real estate crash) will guarantee a crash even for very stable investments.
In other words, a "black swan" is sure to come by, eventually. So only fools construct systems in which one "black swan" will ruin everything, just because "black swans" are estimated to be rare, within the parameters of assumptions that are necessarily incomplete, flawed and non-absolute anyway.
And if you're speculating at the same time you're applying ridiculous leverage? Well that's something like juggling live hand grenades while wheeling your unicycle on a greased tightrope over a canyon with no net. Something bad will happen to you sooner or later.
Or, in the case of Wall Street, "... on a greased tightrope between skyscrapers, over crowded streets with no net. Sooner or later, something bad will happen to you, the reckless idiot juggling live hand grenades while riding a unicycle on a greased tightrope who deserves to die messy, and something bad will happen to a lot of innocent bystanders who did not choose to take such moronic risks.
The refined financial term is "speculation". It only becomes "gambling" in the business sense when you crater something.
I'm sure it is. Somehow, I just can't seem to care what gamblers who off-shored the vast majority of my country's entire industrial base then devalued what was left with their incompetent and corrupt gambling habits, prefer that I call their activities. In a casino, whether you win or lose, you're a gambler. So I won't acknowledge that distinction for the same type of behavior, just because it takes place in a different setting, a setting in which they keep any winnings, and pass on all losses to the working people of the country, by the way. Win or lose, it's gambling. And now we know, mathematically, gambling is literally the correct term; it's only roughly-informed risk-taking, like playing blackjack with a deck of approximately 52 cards, +/-... how many? They don't know and I won't go along with nomenclature that has no purpose but to forge the impression that their risk-taking is more informed than it is.
When they give back GM workers' pensions, I'll consider giving a fuck what Wall Street gamblers wish me to call them and their gambling.
The subject is a rigorous mathematical proof that what we're told about capitalism being efficient is inherently less generally true than the sweeping, absolute terms that especially conservatives and libertarians like to claim. Direct implications of this proof include: de-regulation legislation like the Credit Futures Modernization Act & Gramm-Leach-Bliley, whose "value" was alleged to have been in facilitating more rapid exchange of capital and thereby greater "efficiency," now provably can only deliver more opportunities to gamble. Events since 15 September 2008 already constituted strong circumstantial evidence, but this is absolute proof. That's a rigorous, mathematical proof mind you. What that means is indeed absolute proof. Unless an error is found in the math, this means everything we've been told about the "benefits" that Wall Street offers society, for at least a generation, is hogwash. AC's commentary on the implications is not offtopic. You just dislike the implications. Tough shit.
It absolutely is gambling and any investor who denies this is either dishonest or not very well informed. I infer from your sarcastic quote marks that I'll enjoy Edward Chancellor's book -- sometime after I enjoy Taleb's, and Reich's, and...
But was there a mathematical proof? Or just 'Street common wisdom & anecdote, that no sure-fire formula exists?
The summary: "... proving that no general explicit or closed form expression exists for pricing."
There is something new here. I get your point that Wall Street will not change its ways because you and every other trader have already been assuming what this paper proves, and I don't doubt what you said one bit, but for the rest of us this is significant because formal, incontrovertible mathematical proof that stock trading is to a degree inherently irrational absolutely puts the lie to the anti-regulation, libertardian free market BS spouted by "think" tank "experts" in "mainstream" corporate news and commentary. Whether this fact will propagate to general common wisdom is another matter, but this proof is culturally and politically significant even if nobody notices that it is.
My guess is that they just "copied & pasted" the idea from Brenden Malacuso's Recompute. Very cheezy, Asus, to take that to market without paying a royalty to the guy who came up with the idea, or at least a tip of the hat & a mention in your marketing materials. I think I'll put my next GIGABYTE mobo in a case based on Brenden's design, homemade from my own leftover moving & Newegg shipping boxes, and see if I can find a "donate" link to offer Brenden a modest reward for his ingenuity. Asus: give credit where credit is due; you just happened to come out with this design less than four weeks after engadget.com features it? I call BS. You stole that design.
Yes, that's about it. It's just about being selfish, and imagining that others envy him.
In short, I just don't care about the same things that you do so don't be jealous...
Nobody is jealous of you, dum-ass. Nobody. (not you, AC, the gp, sumdumass) We all know what personal defect motivates you to pretend that anybody is jealous of you, in order to feel better about yourself. Most people just pity you too much to say it. I don't have time for pity nor for the likes of you. Global warming is a proven fact and it has nothing to do with the size or performance of your, ahem, "vehicle" nor with the mode of transportation you choose to compensate for your many personal deficiencies. And I don't care that you don't care about the Earth or your own grandchildren if you have any. You're part of a community whether you like it or not and you will curtail your consumption and pollution.
Aaron Barr just failed upward. Nepotism is one thing, but once I saw that W had failed upward all the way to the Presidency with Supreme Court jurists as his accomplices, I re-examined a lot of assumptions about ethics and competency in high places in this country.
As Thursday's show continued, I received confirmation that I, personally, along with members of my family, had been highlighted in Themis' proposed hit job, as ThinkProgress followed up with a second story, based on several other emails from HBGary's CEO Aaron Barr. The email focused on me included names, personal information, home addresses, etc. of myself, family members and a number of other members of VR. Naturally, I reported on the then-confirmed news in the second hour of that night's Malloy Show.
When asked to investigate pro-union websites and WikiLeaks, Barr turned immediately to his social media toolkit and was ready to deploy personas, Facebook scraping, link analysis, and fake websites; he also suggested computer attacks on WikiLeaks infrastructure and pressure be brought upon journalists like Glenn Greenwald.
His compatriots at Palantir and Berico showed, in their many e-mails, few if any qualms about turning their national security techniques upon private dissenting voices. Barr's ideas showed up in Palantir-branded PowerPoints and Berico-branded "scope of work" documents. "Reconnaissance cells" were proposed, network attacks were acceptable, "target dossiers" on "adversaries" would be compiled, and "complex information campaigns" involving fake personas were on the table.
Critics like Glenn Greenwald contend that this nexus of private and public security power is a dangerous mix. "The real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power," he wrote last week.
Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former.
The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.
Even if you don't share this view, the e-mails provide a fascinating glimpse into the origins of government-controlled malware. Given the number of rootkits apparently being developed for government use, one wonders just how many machines around the globe could respond to orders from the US military. Or the Chinese military. Or the Russian military.
While hackers get most of the attention for their rootkits and botnets and malware, state actors use the same tools to play a different game—the Great Game—and it could be coming soon to a computer near you.
And you'll define "a good one" after the fact, right? And no matter what, you'll find something you dislike about whatever investigation occurs. Gee, I'd like a piece of that action but my money tree doesn't go into bloom until mid-spring and only bears fruit a few months later.
The following is not a "theory" it is US law: collaborating with others for such purposes is a separate class of crime, called conspiracy. It's a felony, meaning hard time with violent cellmates.
Democrats will of course take every opportunity to posture in front of the TV cameras so they will yell and scream a bit, safe in the knowledge that they won't be asked "wheres the beef" by the legacy media. So stay away from Breitbart and Fox and it' still just like the 20th Century.
True, only in the sense that in the 20th century, although the Speaker of the House could impeach the President for the same conduct he was engaging in himself, back in the 20th century when you just made things up with absolutely no basis in reality, it wouldn't be broadcast on every tv "news" program as fact. Fox "News" has always been trash, but some of the others used to check their facts. Now, it seems only Liberals and Progressives even bother.
Slashdot Mirror
So, where is the evidence for the well established man-made part, along with the data so it can be reproduced and verified?
I appreciate the wisdom of your reasoning. It is an effective way to deal with incomplete information. But the crucial part of what you consider unknown about climatology is not unknown. It is known, knowable, proven fact.
American Institute of Physics
"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)
This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question, of a sort that physics theory was just then beginning to learn how to attack: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface and warms it up, why doesn't the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier's answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space. But when he calculated the effect with his new theoretical tools, he got a temperature well below freezing, much colder than the actual Earth.(9a*)
The difference, Fourier recognized, was due to the Earth's atmosphere. Somehow it kept part of the heat radiation in. He tried to explain this by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (The main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away, although the glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping.) Nevertheless, trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)
Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation.
This can now be proved in any respectable chem lab.
Roger Wilco:
There are also clues that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two, but as I understand that's less clear.
Marc Morano, Jim Inhoffe and the Viscount #3 of Brenchley, so-called "Christopher Monckton" and their corporate overlords would very much like for us to believe that, but it simply isn't so. As in any field of science broad enough to be its own field, some things remain to be determined. Some of the coupling constants in the Global Circulation Models are known with higher confidence than others. But the first order effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is absolutely not one of the things that remains to be determined. It is known, and has been a known fact since the 19th century. Later, quantum mechanics told us why this is so; certain wavelengths correspond to heat, and carbon dioxide refuses to emit wavelength at a significant portion of the
Rotates on its axis once every 59 Earth days, but because of its slow rotation and fast speed around the Sun, one solar day (from noon to noon at the same place) lasts 176 Earth days, or two Mercury years
Although I'd say the article is clearer, both the article and Wikipedia are technically correct because Wikipedia talks about three rotations, not days. Calculating the length of a solar day on Mercury requires accounting for the orientation of a point on Mercury to the Sun; as Mercury rotates once, it also travels through 59/88 of an orbit, so one rotation != one solar day on Mercury and the article and Wikipedia are not in contradiction, they just tell different parts of the story. Hope this helps.
Cigarettes & vodka.
... to seconds or maybe even minutes, so that the speculative adventures at NYSE, FTSE, Nikkei, etc. will diminish to faint white noise superposed on the stable, slowly & steadily increasing baseline known as "the real economy."
The purpose of a financial sector is to facilitate the efficiency of the real economy, full stop. Under current U.S. law, the financial sector is so corrupt and governed so incompetently that its activities, exchanging certificates of things of real value, that between intervals of relatively steady growth, there are frequent major events that significantly retard the real economy for significant intervals, but shorter intervals than the intervals of growth. So, averaged over very long times, or compressed so that many of these cycles occur much more rapidly, they should in fact average out to stable growth and fluctuations that look like soft white noise, which is the most that we would ever have heard from Wall Street if those crooks and idiots had ever known how to do any real work.
So, Wall Street IT guys, if you believe you can absolutely guarantee that the result of this will be a more stable financial sector which will no longer interfere with the real economy EVER, then feel free to run it past Elizabeth Warren, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Nicholas Nasim Taleb to validate your AMATEUR analysis. But if you cannot ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that this will reduce, not increase the risk to the rest of us from Wall Street, then don't even think about it. Not even for a picosecond.
The first brand(s) to offer an open BIOS will win new customers, and if they do it right, loyal customers.
The difference, and the reason your analogy is shit, is that aeronautical engineers don't claim to know the existence and smoothness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations in R3.
There, fixed that for myself.
The difference, and the reason your analogy is shit, is that aeronautical engineers don't claim to know the existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equations in R3. If you ask them, they're honest about which of their equations are just assumptions and why they believe they're valid assumptions. What economists, especially those employed by corporate lobbying firms, have been claiming to anybody with a microphone and camera or a steno pad for decades, is that more trading is always good because, they claim, market actors rationally pursue profit while having "perfect information" about the things they're trading. This paper does prove the latter assumption invalid for these classes of speculative trade. So please, make some more sweeping generalizations about what you stupidly assume that I don't know, jackass.
It's criminal conspiracy.
Okay, then. In my opinion, the color of Steve Ballmer's socks is responsible for Scott Walker, Koch Industries, the explosion of BP's Maconda Well, the disinformation from "Curveball" that the Junior Bush administration chose to use as the pretext for Operation Iraqi Liberation, the increasing rate of unemployment in the United States as well as all the very-long-term-unemployed who no longer qualify to even be included in the "official" unemployment statistics, and, oh yeah, exceptions to H1-B law obtained by Microsoft under false pretenses. I realize some of those connections are a bit tenuous, but Bill Gates certainly didn't use his best judgment when he lied in an op-ed in the Washington Post, in an interview with David Broder, and every time he testified to Congress that the "talent" Microsoft seeks just isn't available in the United States. Maybe Steve Ballmer's socks were playing tricks on his mind. Or maybe he's just a douchebag.
No pun intended. Any "funny" mods for that pun are rightfully yours.
While I sense a great deal of sarcasm in this thread, it is worth noting that speculation actually can result in positive return over long periods of time. Some people are very good trader/gamblers and their talents shouldn't be denied. But the problem comes when you have high leverage amplifying all the risks of the market and the business.
Totally agree. I almost said the same thing, but just wanted to be sure not to say too much. I tend to go on a bit, you see. :-)
But since somebody is interested, I'll say that a very important distinction is knowing the odds and playing them smartly, versus guessing the odds skillfully/luckily. Over time, luck always runs out eventually. So says the Strong Law of Large Numbers.
High leverage where one borrows staggering amounts of money (something like 50 borrowed dollars to 1 dollar of assets was common in the recent real estate crash) will guarantee a crash even for very stable investments.
In other words, a "black swan" is sure to come by, eventually. So only fools construct systems in which one "black swan" will ruin everything, just because "black swans" are estimated to be rare, within the parameters of assumptions that are necessarily incomplete, flawed and non-absolute anyway.
And if you're speculating at the same time you're applying ridiculous leverage? Well that's something like juggling live hand grenades while wheeling your unicycle on a greased tightrope over a canyon with no net. Something bad will happen to you sooner or later.
Or, in the case of Wall Street, "... on a greased tightrope between skyscrapers, over crowded streets with no net. Sooner or later, something bad will happen to you, the reckless idiot juggling live hand grenades while riding a unicycle on a greased tightrope who deserves to die messy, and something bad will happen to a lot of innocent bystanders who did not choose to take such moronic risks.
The refined financial term is "speculation". It only becomes "gambling" in the business sense when you crater something.
I'm sure it is. Somehow, I just can't seem to care what gamblers who off-shored the vast majority of my country's entire industrial base then devalued what was left with their incompetent and corrupt gambling habits, prefer that I call their activities. In a casino, whether you win or lose, you're a gambler. So I won't acknowledge that distinction for the same type of behavior, just because it takes place in a different setting, a setting in which they keep any winnings, and pass on all losses to the working people of the country, by the way. Win or lose, it's gambling. And now we know, mathematically, gambling is literally the correct term; it's only roughly-informed risk-taking, like playing blackjack with a deck of approximately 52 cards, +/- ... how many? They don't know and I won't go along with nomenclature that has no purpose but to forge the impression that their risk-taking is more informed than it is.
When they give back GM workers' pensions, I'll consider giving a fuck what Wall Street gamblers wish me to call them and their gambling.
I'm good for a laugh. What great thing does today's Wall Street represent to you?
I'd like to know also.
multifaceted wisdom
The subject is a rigorous mathematical proof that what we're told about capitalism being efficient is inherently less generally true than the sweeping, absolute terms that especially conservatives and libertarians like to claim. Direct implications of this proof include: de-regulation legislation like the Credit Futures Modernization Act & Gramm-Leach-Bliley, whose "value" was alleged to have been in facilitating more rapid exchange of capital and thereby greater "efficiency," now provably can only deliver more opportunities to gamble. Events since 15 September 2008 already constituted strong circumstantial evidence, but this is absolute proof. That's a rigorous, mathematical proof mind you. What that means is indeed absolute proof. Unless an error is found in the math, this means everything we've been told about the "benefits" that Wall Street offers society, for at least a generation, is hogwash. AC's commentary on the implications is not offtopic. You just dislike the implications. Tough shit.
It absolutely is gambling and any investor who denies this is either dishonest or not very well informed. I infer from your sarcastic quote marks that I'll enjoy Edward Chancellor's book -- sometime after I enjoy Taleb's, and Reich's, and ...
But was there a mathematical proof? Or just 'Street common wisdom & anecdote, that no sure-fire formula exists?
The summary: "... proving that no general explicit or closed form expression exists for pricing."
There is something new here. I get your point that Wall Street will not change its ways because you and every other trader have already been assuming what this paper proves, and I don't doubt what you said one bit, but for the rest of us this is significant because formal, incontrovertible mathematical proof that stock trading is to a degree inherently irrational absolutely puts the lie to the anti-regulation, libertardian free market BS spouted by "think" tank "experts" in "mainstream" corporate news and commentary. Whether this fact will propagate to general common wisdom is another matter, but this proof is culturally and politically significant even if nobody notices that it is.
My guess is that they just "copied & pasted" the idea from Brenden Malacuso's Recompute. Very cheezy, Asus, to take that to market without paying a royalty to the guy who came up with the idea, or at least a tip of the hat & a mention in your marketing materials. I think I'll put my next GIGABYTE mobo in a case based on Brenden's design, homemade from my own leftover moving & Newegg shipping boxes, and see if I can find a "donate" link to offer Brenden a modest reward for his ingenuity. Asus: give credit where credit is due; you just happened to come out with this design less than four weeks after engadget.com features it? I call BS. You stole that design.
In short, I just don't care about the same things that you do so don't be jealous ...
Nobody is jealous of you, dum-ass. Nobody. (not you, AC, the gp, sumdumass) We all know what personal defect motivates you to pretend that anybody is jealous of you, in order to feel better about yourself. Most people just pity you too much to say it. I don't have time for pity nor for the likes of you. Global warming is a proven fact and it has nothing to do with the size or performance of your, ahem, "vehicle" nor with the mode of transportation you choose to compensate for your many personal deficiencies. And I don't care that you don't care about the Earth or your own grandchildren if you have any. You're part of a community whether you like it or not and you will curtail your consumption and pollution.
Aaron Barr just failed upward. Nepotism is one thing, but once I saw that W had failed upward all the way to the Presidency with Supreme Court jurists as his accomplices, I re-examined a lot of assumptions about ethics and competency in high places in this country.
As Thursday's show continued, I received confirmation that I, personally, along with members of my family, had been highlighted in Themis' proposed hit job, as ThinkProgress followed up with a second story, based on several other emails from HBGary's CEO Aaron Barr. The email focused on me included names, personal information, home addresses, etc. of myself, family members and a number of other members of VR. Naturally, I reported on the then-confirmed news in the second hour of that night's Malloy Show.
From page 5 of the Ars Technica article:
When asked to investigate pro-union websites and WikiLeaks, Barr turned immediately to his social media toolkit and was ready to deploy personas, Facebook scraping, link analysis, and fake websites; he also suggested computer attacks on WikiLeaks infrastructure and pressure be brought upon journalists like Glenn Greenwald.
His compatriots at Palantir and Berico showed, in their many e-mails, few if any qualms about turning their national security techniques upon private dissenting voices. Barr's ideas showed up in Palantir-branded PowerPoints and Berico-branded "scope of work" documents. "Reconnaissance cells" were proposed, network attacks were acceptable, "target dossiers" on "adversaries" would be compiled, and "complex information campaigns" involving fake personas were on the table.
Critics like Glenn Greenwald contend that this nexus of private and public security power is a dangerous mix. "The real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power," he wrote last week.
Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former.
The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.
Even if you don't share this view, the e-mails provide a fascinating glimpse into the origins of government-controlled malware. Given the number of rootkits apparently being developed for government use, one wonders just how many machines around the globe could respond to orders from the US military. Or the Chinese military. Or the Russian military.
While hackers get most of the attention for their rootkits and botnets and malware, state actors use the same tools to play a different game—the Great Game—and it could be coming soon to a computer near you.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8351
And you'll define "a good one" after the fact, right? And no matter what, you'll find something you dislike about whatever investigation occurs. Gee, I'd like a piece of that action but my money tree doesn't go into bloom until mid-spring and only bears fruit a few months later.
The following is not a "theory" it is US law: collaborating with others for such purposes is a separate class of crime, called conspiracy. It's a felony, meaning hard time with violent cellmates.
Democrats will of course take every opportunity to posture in front of the TV cameras so they will yell and scream a bit, safe in the knowledge that they won't be asked "wheres the beef" by the legacy media. So stay away from Breitbart and Fox and it' still just like the 20th Century.
True, only in the sense that in the 20th century, although the Speaker of the House could impeach the President for the same conduct he was engaging in himself, back in the 20th century when you just made things up with absolutely no basis in reality, it wouldn't be broadcast on every tv "news" program as fact. Fox "News" has always been trash, but some of the others used to check their facts. Now, it seems only Liberals and Progressives even bother.