Whenever people say stuff like this, I'm reminded of Ned Flanders not carrying insurance on his house because, "it's a form of gambling". It's funny because it's true. Options are just ways to insure your portfolio. Yes, you can also use them to place really big crazy bets that can wipe out entire corporations, and even throw whole sovereigns into a tailspin. That's not a problem with derivatives. That's a problem with letting Homer Simpson run your options trading desk.
I see it (hopefully) within the context of similar protests that have occured throughout US history.
For example, the Pullman Strike. That, and other labor unrest during the later part of the "robber barron" era lead to things we now take for granted such as minimum wage and the 40 hour week.
There were also grass roots leftist movements during the Great Depression.
When you read these histories, some of the things said by actors on both sides are eerily similar.
The hope is that these actions will reform and perfect our republic; but not destroy it. "Revolution" is a word that gets tossed around a lot; but I think there are very few people who want a true revolution (which I would define as a new constitutional convention that unseats all currently elected officials in one fell swoop and replaces them with something else).
The US has been flexible over its history, and that's a strength. We don't need a revolution because it's built into the Constitution in the form of elections and even the ability to ammend the Constitution itself. For example, some have proposed an ammendment that would overturn Citizens United and strip corporations of personhood. I'm not arguing for or against such an ammendment. I'm just citing it as an example of how change can occur within the framework of the Constitution without destroying the nation.
In other words, we have the rights of speech and assembly, and they are being used. I just hope they don't get abused and destroyed.
Ever since hybrids became more prevalent, I've been waiting for somebody to produce a car modeled after the tower PC case design.
Imagine a car with standard busses for power and data. Imagine plugging a USB cable into the dash for diagnostic readout. Finally (the hardest part) imagine standard bays for generators and batteries. No, you're not going to swap out an engine too often, and some of the connections like exhaust and fluid cooling are tricky.
OTOH, the idea of getting the "efficient new engine" the way you get "the fast new graphics card" is intriguing to the geek in me. Unfortunately, it's not very interesting to most consumers, and it's probably downright threatening to the current business models of most manufacturers.
If you own the patent, you MUST license it to people who actually produce the product. People who wish to use ANY patented technology would pay a percentage of their gross receipt per unit into a pool. The devil's in the details of administrating this. I'm not stuck on this scheme as the solution; but plainly the ability to suppress production is a big problem. If you don't think it's a problem, just google "ovonics", or try to buy a large battery pack for EV experiments.
You think he's nuts; but HAARP is the only way to control the vast numbers of people who are required to keep the secrets that make conspiracies work. Without it, the whole system would892570945&^*^ NO CARRIER.
I'm being facetious whereas the senators aren't. I thought everyone would see that.
Re:Any studies to back up the "small code" thesis
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 2
That's interesting but I think the question is more along the lines of whether or not
(c1 ? f1 : f2) , (c2 ? f3 : f4)
is more or less error prone than the if-else example they used. Imagine a hypothetical terseness maximizing language where the () may be ommitted if there are no arguments
Actually you don't have to imagine that. The code would be more compact in point-free style which doesn't require the parens (like Forth):
f1 f2 c1 if drop f3 f4 c2 if drop
Not sure if that's valid Forth; but you get the idea. Once again, very compact. Understandable? Less error prone? The cyclomatic complexity is the same; but the programmer has to manage a stack in their head. I think that would be more error prone.
Dear Senators, you should be locked up for saying that. Now how do you feel? Sincerely, somebody who didn't get an F in high school civics and who would like very much to see your transcripts.
Don't worry. Somebody will write a start menu replacement. Best of all, it'll come with a special program that helps you buy real estate for no money down, work at home, and enlarge your p3n1s.
Any studies to back up the "small code" thesis
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 2
Are there any studies to back up the "smaller code is better" thesis? My own experience and that of many others leads us to diasgree; but our anecdote and/or sentiment is no better than theirs.
1. Quantify terseness.
2. Assign terseness value to language.
3. Quantify qualities of interest
(maintainability, etc.).
4. ???
5. Science!
Not that I think this would solve the problem; but at some point a motel owner might think, "wait, they sold me something and didn't warn me that I had to get a license?".
The next step is a class action against the manufacturer of the router, suing for whatever they paid the troll, damages, etc.
Then the troll and the manufacturer's lawyers can go off and circle jerk someplace. That way all the insanity is shoved back into the corporate arena. At some point, the corporations might even realize that it's just like a tax. Then they'll figure out how not to pay it.
Yeah I know it probably wouldn't work; but it would be nice to turn the absurdity back in on itself.
Actually, the link claims there is evidence of catastrophic freshwater increases in a timeframe spanning months; but I'm too lazy to track the citation.
OMG! You're right. It'll react and form hydrogon peroxide. This will mix with rain water and get in people's hair. We'll turn blonde, which means we'll start making stupid dec.... Oh no. It's too late, it's started already. RUN!!!
I realize it's just one data point; but it didn't work for me. One time I accidently started chomping on one of the Szechuan peppers in my chicken kung pao. By the time I realized what I was doing, it was too late and I had a mouth full of chomped up pepper. My room-mates said, "there's cold beer in the fridge, that'll help". No dice. On top of the burning, all I had was a slight fizzy sensation from the carbonation. Only time helped.
If I don't recognize the caller ID, I don't answer. It really is that simple. Most of these things won't go to voicemail. If they start doing that, there will be more countermeasures.
Hey, how about providing services that we want or need? How about providing them in a friendly and courteous manor, like the local coffee shop? They get more of my money than I want to count. A certain major telecom that telemarketed me back in the 90s? I'm *still* reluctant to ever use their service.
I'd like to see a practical version of this that runs on junk mail. Unfortunately, burning the inks in glossy coupon flyers probably doesn't smell so good. It might be toxic too.
And yes, it wouldn't really be green. It's just that as long as the postman keeps delivering free fuel to me, I'd like a way to use it.
Before Groupon, we knew that markets could remain irrational longer than investors could remain solvent; but we didn't know how long. Thank-you, Groupon.
Totally steampunk. Miniaturizing the locomotive and taking it off-track was an obvious approach towards independant motorized transit. This makes me wonder, what are the oldest running vehicles in the various tech categories (gasoline powered, diesel, electric, and hybrid). You could break this down even further I suppose. Oldest fuel injected vehicle still running? Less interesting though. Yeah I know I could google it, and maybe I will later...
Empirically though, the difference isn't that bad. OK, it's bad if you look at the 10% difference at the end of the chart; but it's good when you look at correlation over time. Do the Dow stocks always do better because a small index has a more obvious "must buy because it's in the index" effect, or is this just true over the timeframe in the chart? Left as an exercise for the reader.
FWIW, the Dow concept of "the biggest 30 are really all that matter" is interesting; but yes, market cap weighting would certainly make a lot more sense. The current methodology has to be tradition. The Apple problem could be solved with a "virtual split" when enterred into the index; but that'd be cheating.
Slashdot Mirror
The social good derived from (say) derivatives shorting is vanishingly close to zero.
Go the the Options Industry Council and educate yourself.
Whenever people say stuff like this, I'm reminded of Ned Flanders not carrying insurance on his house because, "it's a form of gambling". It's funny because it's true. Options are just ways to insure your portfolio. Yes, you can also use them to place really big crazy bets that can wipe out entire corporations, and even throw whole sovereigns into a tailspin. That's not a problem with derivatives. That's a problem with letting Homer Simpson run your options trading desk.
I see it (hopefully) within the context of similar protests that have occured throughout US history.
For example, the Pullman Strike. That, and other labor unrest during the later part of the "robber barron" era lead to things we now take for granted such as minimum wage and the 40 hour week.
There were also grass roots leftist movements during the Great Depression.
When you read these histories, some of the things said by actors on both sides are eerily similar.
The hope is that these actions will reform and perfect our republic; but not destroy it. "Revolution" is a word that gets tossed around a lot; but I think there are very few people who want a true revolution (which I would define as a new constitutional convention that unseats all currently elected officials in one fell swoop and replaces them with something else).
The US has been flexible over its history, and that's a strength. We don't need a revolution because it's built into the Constitution in the form of elections and even the ability to ammend the Constitution itself. For example, some have proposed an ammendment that would overturn Citizens United and strip corporations of personhood. I'm not arguing for or against such an ammendment. I'm just citing it as an example of how change can occur within the framework of the Constitution without destroying the nation.
In other words, we have the rights of speech and assembly, and they are being used. I just hope they don't get abused and destroyed.
(2) because it pisses you off
A real life Swing Vote scenario, except that it's an Australian controlling our elections. Whodathunkit? (Ah say, that's a joke, son).
Tie cuts off blood supply to brain. Film at 11.
Ever since hybrids became more prevalent, I've been waiting for somebody to produce a car modeled after the tower PC case design.
Imagine a car with standard busses for power and data. Imagine plugging a USB cable into the dash for diagnostic readout. Finally (the hardest part) imagine standard bays for generators and batteries. No, you're not going to swap out an engine too often, and some of the connections like exhaust and fluid cooling are tricky.
OTOH, the idea of getting the "efficient new engine" the way you get "the fast new graphics card" is intriguing to the geek in me. Unfortunately, it's not very interesting to most consumers, and it's probably downright threatening to the current business models of most manufacturers.
Planets are just hard to find or astronomers think they are rare phenomena in the universe?
You need to go to a club and whisper this question to somebody facing away from you on the other side of the room.
If you own the patent, you MUST license it to people who actually produce the product. People who wish to use ANY patented technology would pay a percentage of their gross receipt per unit into a pool. The devil's in the details of administrating this. I'm not stuck on this scheme as the solution; but plainly the ability to suppress production is a big problem. If you don't think it's a problem, just google "ovonics", or try to buy a large battery pack for EV experiments.
You think he's nuts; but HAARP is the only way to control the vast numbers of people who are required to keep the secrets that make conspiracies work. Without it, the whole system would892570945&^*^ NO CARRIER.
I'm being facetious whereas the senators aren't. I thought everyone would see that.
That's interesting but I think the question is more along the lines of whether or not
is more or less error prone than the if-else example they used. Imagine a hypothetical terseness maximizing language where the () may be ommitted if there are no arguments
Actually you don't have to imagine that. The code would be more compact in point-free style which doesn't require the parens (like Forth):
Not sure if that's valid Forth; but you get the idea. Once again, very compact. Understandable? Less error prone? The cyclomatic complexity is the same; but the programmer has to manage a stack in their head. I think that would be more error prone.
Dear Senators, you should be locked up for saying that. Now how do you feel? Sincerely, somebody who didn't get an F in high school civics and who would like very much to see your transcripts.
Don't worry. Somebody will write a start menu replacement. Best of all, it'll come with a special program that helps you buy real estate for no money down, work at home, and enlarge your p3n1s.
Are there any studies to back up the "smaller code is better" thesis? My own experience and that of many others leads us to diasgree; but our anecdote and/or sentiment is no better than theirs.
1. Quantify terseness.
2. Assign terseness value to language.
3. Quantify qualities of interest (maintainability, etc.).
4. ???
5. Science!
Not that I think this would solve the problem; but at some point a motel owner might think, "wait, they sold me something and didn't warn me that I had to get a license?".
The next step is a class action against the manufacturer of the router, suing for whatever they paid the troll, damages, etc.
Then the troll and the manufacturer's lawyers can go off and circle jerk someplace. That way all the insanity is shoved back into the corporate arena. At some point, the corporations might even realize that it's just like a tax. Then they'll figure out how not to pay it.
Yeah I know it probably wouldn't work; but it would be nice to turn the absurdity back in on itself.
Maybe those ones didn't, but others may have.
Actually, the link claims there is evidence of catastrophic freshwater increases in a timeframe spanning months; but I'm too lazy to track the citation.
OMG! You're right. It'll react and form hydrogon peroxide. This will mix with rain water and get in people's hair. We'll turn blonde, which means we'll start making stupid dec.... Oh no. It's too late, it's started already. RUN!!!
I realize it's just one data point; but it didn't work for me. One time I accidently started chomping on one of the Szechuan peppers in my chicken kung pao. By the time I realized what I was doing, it was too late and I had a mouth full of chomped up pepper. My room-mates said, "there's cold beer in the fridge, that'll help". No dice. On top of the burning, all I had was a slight fizzy sensation from the carbonation. Only time helped.
I concur.
If I don't recognize the caller ID, I don't answer. It really is that simple. Most of these things won't go to voicemail. If they start doing that, there will be more countermeasures.
Hey, how about providing services that we want or need? How about providing them in a friendly and courteous manor, like the local coffee shop? They get more of my money than I want to count. A certain major telecom that telemarketed me back in the 90s? I'm *still* reluctant to ever use their service.
I'd like to see a practical version of this that runs on junk mail. Unfortunately, burning the inks in glossy coupon flyers probably doesn't smell so good. It might be toxic too.
And yes, it wouldn't really be green. It's just that as long as the postman keeps delivering free fuel to me, I'd like a way to use it.
Before Groupon, we knew that markets could remain irrational longer than investors could remain solvent; but we didn't know how long. Thank-you, Groupon.
A bar walks into a neutrino and says, "it's all relative".
Totally steampunk. Miniaturizing the locomotive and taking it off-track was an obvious approach towards independant motorized transit. This makes me wonder, what are the oldest running vehicles in the various tech categories (gasoline powered, diesel, electric, and hybrid). You could break this down even further I suppose. Oldest fuel injected vehicle still running? Less interesting though. Yeah I know I could google it, and maybe I will later...
Somebody probably just left a slightly magnetized keychain next to something.
Empirically though, the difference isn't that bad. OK, it's bad if you look at the 10% difference at the end of the chart; but it's good when you look at correlation over time. Do the Dow stocks always do better because a small index has a more obvious "must buy because it's in the index" effect, or is this just true over the timeframe in the chart? Left as an exercise for the reader.
FWIW, the Dow concept of "the biggest 30 are really all that matter" is interesting; but yes, market cap weighting would certainly make a lot more sense. The current methodology has to be tradition. The Apple problem could be solved with a "virtual split" when enterred into the index; but that'd be cheating.