as i recall this story, it was about futures trading. and, although that was the story (i.e. that it was an error), you're trusting the powers-that-be to be telling you the truth here. that was a futures sell on a very slow trading day (holiday), and - even though the futures trades were unwound - the effect on the general markets could have made anyone with a big short position a decent profit. more than that, it gave them an opportunity to buy low and sell on the gap up after the holiday.
but "slow down" is not the lesson of this story. look at the statistics for any of the recent months: a full 42% of all trading nowadays has been program trading. if that sounds big, it is - by historical standards. almost half of the trades are just computers trading with each other. look at any of your favorite stocks - techs in particular - and look at their daily volumes. you'll see that some big fraction of the float trades every day. so if your average buyer is holding the stock for an average of 30 days before flipping it... this buyer isn't an "investor".
and finally, re the futures market: if you've been watching the markets over the last month you'll have noticed what everyone else has noticed: these huge ramps on the futures market which causes ramps in the major indices (dow, nazdog) for no good reason - although usually saving the market from a decline before any selling pressure can build. nowadays, its the tail that wags the dog, the futures market driving the indices.
oh, another unusual statistic: count the number of times the tick has gone over 1000 over the last couple months. if you follow the markets, you know this means a pretty huge buy program coming in and bidding up prices on all the crap in sight.
anyway, no matter what statistics are quoted here, historical claims on "stock market outperforming other investments" is based on markets where a majority of that performance comes from dividends. nowadays, its a casino and a wealth re-distribution mechanism. and lately, a political tool.
yah, i know, i'm paranoid. i'm the type that invests in gold and gold miners after all. (which, by the way, have outperformed even the SCOX.):-P
all this speculating on what's involved, but the project is described in pretty good detail over at the ISI web site. (and so, its apparently not USC specifically but the usc information sciences institute):
http://www.isi.edu/stories/70.html
excerpt:
"The DETER testbed will consist of approximately 1,000 computers with multiple network interface cards, located off the actual Internet. Three permanent hardware clusters, or nodes, at UC Berkeley and at ISI's Southern California and Virginia facilities, will serve as the core of the system.
"This isolated mini-Internet will serve as a shared laboratory where researchers from government, industry and academia can test existing and new security technology, using a wide variety of attack techniques."
take every penny you have and buy corl at $2 in 1998. sell at $40 in 1999. short at $40 in 1999, and don't cover until it hits $1. in the mean time, take the profits and short everything tech in early april 2000.
"If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media."
you know this or you're speculating? i can't imagine that after all of the detail on the shire in FOTR, there won't even be a return to it in an epilogue or something....:(
hey, hasn't jackson said that the end of the movie makes him cry??)
methinks the computerized home of the future is more about technology "fading into the background", making things more convenient but in an unobtrusive way; not the technology being the centerpiece of a "gee whiz" kind of house that would appeal most to a 14-year-old.
but maybe its just the dissonance between a "showcase house of the future", where tech is the centerpiece, and the tech we all really will want and/or need.
> The fraud conviction is overturned, and fraud was > the basis for the FTC's antitrust case, which > almost certainly just evaporated.
based on previous statements of the FTC, this is just not true. they've said there is no overlap because their case involves market issues, which were dismissed from the infineon case when it was narrowed to jedec/fraud and ip issues. there's a significant difference between misleading a standards organization in a way that may or may not violate an agreement among its members; and the apparent fact that they withheld info about, and modified patent applications in an attempt to monopolize a market...
unfortunately, there's quite a bit of misinformation in your post.
"In this respect Europe is in a more fortunate than the US as GSM digital cellular networks have become the standard, so the upgrade to GPRS is a logical one."
this is pretty much wrong, because qualcomm's evolutionary path for cdma2000 was mapped out well quite a long time ago (cdma2000, cdma2000-1x, -1x-ev, -1x-evdo, etc...), where the upgrades are pretty MODEST in requirements. so its not clear why europe and gsm are fortunate here: 2.5g in europe requires planting new basestations all over the place...
"CDMA 2000 system which will evolve into the W-CDMA"
no, w-cdma (a.k.a. "wideband" cdma) was coined by the anti-qualcomm coalition of umts that wanted to stuff their new standard with the IP (intellectual property) of nokia, ericsson etc...
"In practical aspect these are equivalent systems, at least as far as the radio engineering goes"
considering that the whole fight for years and years has been about IP, this is probably not entirely true, except in the sense that much of both systems are based on qualcomm's IP.
> You are missing the point about this shell making > heavy use of the.NET framework. [...] If this > achieves its potential, Linux/UNIX may end up > playing catch-up on the CLI front as well as on > the GUI front.
bah. you are missing the point that people are making with respect to clutter and generic tools overstuffed with unused features. yah, maybe a scripting language that could be hooked into.net would be usable, i suppose, although hooking into perl would probably make everyone happier.
but really, something like perl has been around forever. when was the last time that someone tried to make a perl shell so that you could run arbtrary perl commands from a CLI?
Keep It Simple, Stupid. is it a CLI or an interactive interpreter for VB.NET?
Re:Slashdoters not = programmers
on
Immobile Robots
·
· Score: 1
> the concept is truly profoud and is another small > step on the road to AI. Imagine if PC systems had > the same abilities. They would be less buggy, more > reliable. Programming would become training the AI > rather than debugging pages of code.
and indeed, that's why people tried to do it 20 years ago and still haven't succeeded. the complexity of the problem doesn't disappear by waving your magic buzzword at it. more likely, you've just exchanged the specific problem for a more general class of problems that's even harder to solve adequately.
if someone comes along and says: i want to build a sewage treatment plant where A, B and C are self-regulating and the entire system requires a minimum of human supervision, then that's an engineering problem. there are people you'd probably hire to stake out the requirements, to engineer and then to implement the system. maybe even a fair bit of research to push the envelop.
but d00d, its very unlikely you'd hire a robotocist to do that. not even one who watched an episode of "spock's brain" and got the idea that ideas from robotics research could maybe be redeployed almost anywhere else...
anyone but the most self deluded - or maybe one pushing really hard for some grant money - would have at least paused to ask himself: "hey, maybe the fact that i'm claiming that all of this stuff we use in robotics isn't actually 'just robotics' means that its stuff that folks in those other areas actually know and use already (without the hype of course), rather than assuming that robotics has somehow solved all the problems of embedded systems that nobody else had ever thought of before..."
arrogant academic, i'd say. "immobot". i like the name "smart pickle" better.
jeez, dood. what's the rush? if microsoft can do something tomorrow, what's wrong with the linux/free software crowd finishing their version of it the day after tomorrow?
the war will not be won tomorrow. once you understand that, everything becomes crystal clear.
e.g. in 5 years, what kind of value proposition will micro$oft be able to offer that will entice you to pay them a $200 premium on a $100 computer, or similar system?
you say: > Coming soon. You have identified a protein but can't figure out what it does. Using its sequence, you will soon be able to predict its 3-D structure, which can give you clues about what it does. two things to say about this: 1. its not clear that this will happen in the near future, or ever, merely from computation. inside the cell there are editing processes, then there are chaperonins, which help the protein fold, etc. in other words, its not clear that you ever just look at the dna sequence, transcribe out the proteins, and then infer their fold and function merely from sequence. maybe some of this can be inferred. maybe not. still plenty to do in the lab, though. 2. alot of what you're talking about here has already been available for years. there are already huge databases of expressed protein/nucleic acid sequences. e.g. you suck out the messenger rna's from a cell and reverse transcribe those and then sequence them. that way you get the edited sequences right off the bat. this is what human genome sciences (HGSI) has been working on for 5 years, for example. and they already have several drugs (proteins) in human test studies. (the fourth was just added to day.) i would think that what you get from the genome map is more like: proteins not usually expressed in the cell, or those from early developmental stages; finding all the sites where transcription begins (the switches that turn on various genes and how they interact); stuff like that.
hmm. marc, you need to check out your math. 100 shares of msft run about $10K. or, put it another way, cald opened about about 1/4 the price of msft. so your comparison is off by an order of magnitude: you'd get about 4 times as much with cald than with msft.
Slashdot Mirror
as i recall this story, it was about futures trading. and, although that was the story (i.e. that it was an error), you're trusting the powers-that-be to be telling you the truth here. that was a futures sell on a very slow trading day (holiday), and - even though the futures trades were unwound - the effect on the general markets could have made anyone with a big short position a decent profit. more than that, it gave them an opportunity to buy low and sell on the gap up after the holiday.
... this buyer isn't an "investor".
:-P
but "slow down" is not the lesson of this story. look at the statistics for any of the recent months: a full 42% of all trading nowadays has been program trading. if that sounds big, it is - by historical standards. almost half of the trades are just computers trading with each other. look at any of your favorite stocks - techs in particular - and look at their daily volumes. you'll see that some big fraction of the float trades every day. so if your average buyer is holding the stock for an average of 30 days before flipping it
and finally, re the futures market: if you've been watching the markets over the last month you'll have noticed what everyone else has noticed: these huge ramps on the futures market which causes ramps in the major indices (dow, nazdog) for no good reason - although usually saving the market from a decline before any selling pressure can build. nowadays, its the tail that wags the dog, the futures market driving the indices.
oh, another unusual statistic: count the number of times the tick has gone over 1000 over the last couple months. if you follow the markets, you know this means a pretty huge buy program coming in and bidding up prices on all the crap in sight.
anyway, no matter what statistics are quoted here, historical claims on "stock market outperforming other investments" is based on markets where a majority of that performance comes from dividends. nowadays, its a casino and a wealth re-distribution mechanism. and lately, a political tool.
yah, i know, i'm paranoid. i'm the type that invests in gold and gold miners after all. (which, by the way, have outperformed even the SCOX.)
does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
oops i forgot to linkify that url.
all this speculating on what's involved, but the project is described in pretty good detail over at the ISI web site. (and so, its apparently not USC specifically but the usc information sciences institute):
http://www.isi.edu/stories/70.html
excerpt:
"The DETER testbed will consist of approximately 1,000 computers with multiple network interface cards, located off the actual Internet. Three permanent hardware clusters, or nodes, at UC Berkeley and at ISI's Southern California and Virginia facilities, will serve as the core of the system.
"This isolated mini-Internet will serve as a shared laboratory where researchers from government, industry and academia can test existing and new security technology, using a wide variety of attack techniques."
take every penny you have and buy corl at $2 in 1998. sell at $40 in 1999. short at $40 in 1999, and don't cover until it hits $1. in the mean time, take the profits and short everything tech in early april 2000.
"If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media."
.... :(
you know this or you're speculating? i can't imagine that after all of the detail on the shire in FOTR, there won't even be a return to it in an epilogue or something
hey, hasn't jackson said that the end of the movie makes him cry??)
methinks the computerized home of the future is more about technology "fading into the background", making things more convenient but in an unobtrusive way; not the technology being the centerpiece of a "gee whiz" kind of house that would appeal most to a 14-year-old.
but maybe its just the dissonance between a "showcase house of the future", where tech is the centerpiece, and the tech we all really will want and/or need.
laff.
depending on when you bought it of course ...
> The fraud conviction is overturned, and fraud was
...
> the basis for the FTC's antitrust case, which
> almost certainly just evaporated.
based on previous statements of the FTC, this is just not true. they've said there is no overlap because their case involves market issues, which were dismissed from the infineon case when it was narrowed to jedec/fraud and ip issues. there's a significant difference between misleading a standards organization in a way that may or may not violate an agreement among its members; and the apparent fact that they withheld info about, and modified patent applications in an attempt to monopolize a market
no?
unfortunately, there's quite a bit of misinformation in your post.
...), where the upgrades are pretty MODEST in requirements. so its not clear why europe and gsm are fortunate here: 2.5g in europe requires planting new basestations all over the place ...
...
"In this respect Europe is in a more fortunate than the US as GSM digital cellular networks have become the standard, so the upgrade to GPRS is a logical one."
this is pretty much wrong, because qualcomm's evolutionary path for cdma2000 was mapped out well quite a long time ago (cdma2000, cdma2000-1x, -1x-ev, -1x-evdo, etc
"CDMA 2000 system which will evolve into the W-CDMA"
no, w-cdma (a.k.a. "wideband" cdma) was coined by the anti-qualcomm coalition of umts that wanted to stuff their new standard with the IP (intellectual property) of nokia, ericsson etc
"In practical aspect these are equivalent systems, at least as far as the radio engineering goes"
considering that the whole fight for years and years has been about IP, this is probably not entirely true, except in the sense that much of both systems are based on qualcomm's IP.
> You are missing the point about this shell making .NET framework. [...] If this
.net would be usable, i suppose, although hooking into perl would probably make everyone happier.
> heavy use of the
> achieves its potential, Linux/UNIX may end up
> playing catch-up on the CLI front as well as on
> the GUI front.
bah. you are missing the point that people are making with respect to clutter and generic tools overstuffed with unused features. yah, maybe a scripting language that could be hooked into
but really, something like perl has been around forever. when was the last time that someone tried to make a perl shell so that you could run arbtrary perl commands from a CLI?
Keep It Simple, Stupid. is it a CLI or an interactive interpreter for VB.NET?
> the concept is truly profoud and is another small
> step on the road to AI. Imagine if PC systems had
> the same abilities. They would be less buggy, more
> reliable. Programming would become training the AI
> rather than debugging pages of code.
and indeed, that's why people tried to do it 20 years ago and still haven't succeeded. the complexity of the problem doesn't disappear by waving your magic buzzword at it. more likely, you've just exchanged the specific problem for a more general class of problems that's even harder to solve adequately.
but that doesn't make it robotics.
...
..."
if someone comes along and says: i want to build a sewage treatment plant where A, B and C are self-regulating and the entire system requires a minimum of human supervision, then that's an engineering problem. there are people you'd probably hire to stake out the requirements, to engineer and then to implement the system. maybe even a fair bit of research to push the envelop.
but d00d, its very unlikely you'd hire a robotocist to do that. not even one who watched an episode of "spock's brain" and got the idea that ideas from robotics research could maybe be redeployed almost anywhere else
anyone but the most self deluded - or maybe one pushing really hard for some grant money - would have at least paused to ask himself: "hey, maybe the fact that i'm claiming that all of this stuff we use in robotics isn't actually 'just robotics' means that its stuff that folks in those other areas actually know and use already (without the hype of course), rather than assuming that robotics has somehow solved all the problems of embedded systems that nobody else had ever thought of before
arrogant academic, i'd say. "immobot". i like the name "smart pickle" better.
rose lives, jack dies? what's that a spoiler for?
incentive: expensive, oppressive. or maybe u wanna buy me a copy of MS word?
give unto microsoft what is microsoft's.
because this is the role of the courts, d00d.
i kicked my MS addiction long long ago.
from now on, i am no longer an passive bystander. i'll do iall i can to work AGAINST the beast.
the crime has been proven. the law may not treat them as criminals, but i can.
jeez, dood. what's the rush? if microsoft can do something tomorrow, what's wrong with the linux/free software crowd finishing their version of it the day after tomorrow?
the war will not be won tomorrow. once you understand that, everything becomes crystal clear.
e.g. in 5 years, what kind of value proposition will micro$oft be able to offer that will entice you to pay them a $200 premium on a $100 computer, or similar system?
Well, its historically documented that the rise of automobile hurt the buggy whip business too. Things change. That's life.
"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
I thought the "old" HP way was the new (continuing) Agilent way? No?
d00d, that's a C++ comment in C code. back of the class for you ...
you say: > Coming soon. You have identified a protein but can't figure out what it does. Using its sequence, you will soon be able to predict its 3-D structure, which can give you clues about what it does. two things to say about this: 1. its not clear that this will happen in the near future, or ever, merely from computation. inside the cell there are editing processes, then there are chaperonins, which help the protein fold, etc. in other words, its not clear that you ever just look at the dna sequence, transcribe out the proteins, and then infer their fold and function merely from sequence. maybe some of this can be inferred. maybe not. still plenty to do in the lab, though. 2. alot of what you're talking about here has already been available for years. there are already huge databases of expressed protein/nucleic acid sequences. e.g. you suck out the messenger rna's from a cell and reverse transcribe those and then sequence them. that way you get the edited sequences right off the bat. this is what human genome sciences (HGSI) has been working on for 5 years, for example. and they already have several drugs (proteins) in human test studies. (the fourth was just added to day.) i would think that what you get from the genome map is more like: proteins not usually expressed in the cell, or those from early developmental stages; finding all the sites where transcription begins (the switches that turn on various genes and how they interact); stuff like that.
hmm. marc, you need to check out your math. 100 shares of msft run about $10K. or, put it another way, cald opened about about 1/4 the price of msft. so your comparison is off by an order of magnitude: you'd get about 4 times as much with cald than with msft.