That's not a reasonable standard - there's no way for you to be certain you'll be "able to make it through", especially in traffic. I'd be surprised if you're right - what state are you in (assuming you're in the US)?
Even one molecule at a time, it takes energy to split H2O in to 2Hs and an O. Even if the viruses make the reaction as perfectly efficient as possible, there's no free lunch and it will be impossible to split the water for any less cost in energy than one can obtain by re-introducing the H and O.
You go ahead and keep repeating your story of how the person who bought at what he offered to buy at, and the other person who sold at what he offered to sell at, were the victims of theft. It doesn't make it so.
Your "magician" put in place a trading system that A and B chose to use. The rules by which your "magician" operates are readily available and A abd B both had other options if they didn't like those rules.
You're a broken record who doesn't understand what he's so loudly complaining about.
Super. If (your example) you offer to buy something at $10, and someone sells something to you at $10, not matter whether they purchased it at $9.99, or $9, or $2, nothing's been "taken" from you.
"You were willing to buy at 10, sure, but that means you were willing to buy at MAXIMUM 10.
There was no real supply at 9.99, they created the 'supply' for your specifically and immediately."
So? If I'm trying to sell a car for $10000 and someone places an ad seeking the same car for $11000, am I doing anything wrong by "creating the supply" for the car at $11000? No.
In your example, I was willing to pay $10/share, and that's what I paid. If someone found shares for $9.90 and sold them to me for $10 - so what?
I don't have to offer $10. I could have offered $9 and increased my offer incrementally. But, in your example, I didn't.
You've never shown "theft", apparently don't know what "theft" is, and haven't shown me a transaction that either participant wasn't willing to enter into.
They are freely entered into. If A purchases at $X and B sells at $X, it's irrelevant and transparent to A and B what goes on in between.
If you purchase something from a retailer and (unbeknownst to you at time of purchase) someone else delivers it, or if they never actually held the inventory but really just sold it for some other company without a storefront, it's still a freely-entered-into transaction.
You've shown nowhere how any of this is either th "theft" or not "freely entered into".
Maybe you'd be less murky and meaningless if you shared an explicit example instead of your abstractions of whatever it is you mean.
Nobody would bet their farm (pun intended) running someone else's software on their critically important server farm. Nor would any admin worth this salt invite that amount of someone else's traffic onto the network they use for trading. Or limit the already-often-restrictive windows of service time.
The biggest flaw in this supposition is that most firms who have this much infrastructure are big enough that their trading isn't limited to US markets, and so would be trading over many time zones, limiting the useful downtims.
This is Audi 5000 all over again. From P.J. O'Rourke's 2003 book (Parliament of Whores) account of the mid-1980s Audi "sudden acceleration" scare:
"These sudden-acceleration incidents, or SAIs, closely resemble those sudden-intelligence incidents, or SUIs, that many of us have experimented with our automobiles....we'd be driving down a country road at a reasonable and prudent 115 miles an hour and--all of a sudden, for no apparent reason--the car would suffer an SUI and roll over five times in a cornfield."
"It's worth noting...that the Honda Civic's pedal placement is nearly identical with the Audi 5000's [a car that was blamed for a lot of the SAIs], yet the Civic got few SAI complaints. On the other hand, the Mercury Marquis--where, on a clear day, you can almost see the accelerator from the brake--was in the SAI top ten. We don't need a "60 Minutes" investigative team to tell us what kind of person buys a little Honda rice rocket and what kind of person buys a huge Mercury Medicare sled."
Non-profits don't have to pay taxes on *profit*. They still have to pay sales tax (in most places) and FICA/Medicare tax, and all the stupid taxes on the phone bill, etc.
No, that's not why. Programming costs are about a quarter of the average cable bill.
But I absolutely agree with you: a la carte channel selection would be best for the consumer.
The argument isn't that something's *good* because it's "natural". The argument is that it's stupid to criminalize something that occurs naturally.
I notice that possession of snake poison, cancer, or meteorites is not illegal.
No. If it is, then so is the sticky tape on seams of disk drives that show they've been taken apart.
If your "Orwell" comment is directed at Apple, they're not the only ones - Blackberry devices also have a liquid sensor. 'm sure other devices do also.
Everything that hadn't been discovered in 1787 isn't automatically fair game for the federal government. It isn't a list of things that are forbidden to government, with the implication that the rest is allowed - it's an enumerated list of the powers allowed it, with the explicit instructions that anything else *isn't*.
You don't have an inalienable right to fat bandwidth, I'm sorry. No reasonable interpretation of the Constitution says that you do.
And I see a lot of "teabagger" insults directed mostly at knee-jerks on the right by knee-jerks on the left. Looking at a few "tea party" web sites shows that their limited set of issues is almost completely limited to opposing new taxes and opposing growth of government.
Disagree with those things if you like, but they're not such ridiculous positions that you can dismiss everyone who agrees with them by name-calling. Or, in your case, by dismissing the position of someone *you* think sounds like them, also by name calling.
That's the most interesting question in this thread so far. It only really applies to historical data, though. The expensive stuff is the real-time data, and I'd argue that its value lies as much in its timeliness as in the 'facts' it contains. I doubt that the product created by a system designed to collect and compile it so quickly would be considered just 'a list of facts'.
You can find redistributable, freely-available fifteen-minute old data all over the place. But detailed historical data, say, every second of pricing from a time period ten years ago, isn't easy to find for free but would appear to be just a list of facts.
Oh, I agree 100% about legislative bullshit like Disney paying to extend copyright, or ADM buying ethanol subsidies (or mandates!). Congress (and state legislatures) are out-and-out whores.
Of course it happens in the justice system, it's just not as pervasive.
Obviously you believe more in the integrity of the media source you agree with, as do the equally head-in-the-sand on the other side of the spectrum.
Shooting the messenger - dismissing a story without even considering the information it contains, because you often disagree with the source or even the source's motives - is very intellectually lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a reasonable standard - there's no way for you to be certain you'll be "able to make it through", especially in traffic. I'd be surprised if you're right - what state are you in (assuming you're in the US)?
Even one molecule at a time, it takes energy to split H2O in to 2Hs and an O. Even if the viruses make the reaction as perfectly efficient as possible, there's no free lunch and it will be impossible to split the water for any less cost in energy than one can obtain by re-introducing the H and O.
You go ahead and keep repeating your story of how the person who bought at what he offered to buy at, and the other person who sold at what he offered to sell at, were the victims of theft. It doesn't make it so. Your "magician" put in place a trading system that A and B chose to use. The rules by which your "magician" operates are readily available and A abd B both had other options if they didn't like those rules. You're a broken record who doesn't understand what he's so loudly complaining about.
Super. If (your example) you offer to buy something at $10, and someone sells something to you at $10, not matter whether they purchased it at $9.99, or $9, or $2, nothing's been "taken" from you.
"You were willing to buy at 10, sure, but that means you were willing to buy at MAXIMUM 10. There was no real supply at 9.99, they created the 'supply' for your specifically and immediately." So? If I'm trying to sell a car for $10000 and someone places an ad seeking the same car for $11000, am I doing anything wrong by "creating the supply" for the car at $11000? No. In your example, I was willing to pay $10/share, and that's what I paid. If someone found shares for $9.90 and sold them to me for $10 - so what? I don't have to offer $10. I could have offered $9 and increased my offer incrementally. But, in your example, I didn't. You've never shown "theft", apparently don't know what "theft" is, and haven't shown me a transaction that either participant wasn't willing to enter into.
They are freely entered into. If A purchases at $X and B sells at $X, it's irrelevant and transparent to A and B what goes on in between. If you purchase something from a retailer and (unbeknownst to you at time of purchase) someone else delivers it, or if they never actually held the inventory but really just sold it for some other company without a storefront, it's still a freely-entered-into transaction. You've shown nowhere how any of this is either th "theft" or not "freely entered into". Maybe you'd be less murky and meaningless if you shared an explicit example instead of your abstractions of whatever it is you mean.
If your assertion is that taxation is theft, then argue that. Because the rest of what you've said doesn't amount to what you claim.
Your repeating that these freely-entered-into transactions are "theft" twice as often doesn't make it twice as true, or half as false.
Nobody would bet their farm (pun intended) running someone else's software on their critically important server farm. Nor would any admin worth this salt invite that amount of someone else's traffic onto the network they use for trading. Or limit the already-often-restrictive windows of service time. The biggest flaw in this supposition is that most firms who have this much infrastructure are big enough that their trading isn't limited to US markets, and so would be trading over many time zones, limiting the useful downtims.
This is Audi 5000 all over again. From P.J. O'Rourke's 2003 book (Parliament of Whores) account of the mid-1980s Audi "sudden acceleration" scare: "These sudden-acceleration incidents, or SAIs, closely resemble those sudden-intelligence incidents, or SUIs, that many of us have experimented with our automobiles....we'd be driving down a country road at a reasonable and prudent 115 miles an hour and--all of a sudden, for no apparent reason--the car would suffer an SUI and roll over five times in a cornfield." "It's worth noting...that the Honda Civic's pedal placement is nearly identical with the Audi 5000's [a car that was blamed for a lot of the SAIs], yet the Civic got few SAI complaints. On the other hand, the Mercury Marquis--where, on a clear day, you can almost see the accelerator from the brake--was in the SAI top ten. We don't need a "60 Minutes" investigative team to tell us what kind of person buys a little Honda rice rocket and what kind of person buys a huge Mercury Medicare sled."
Absolutely, 100%, yes.
Non-profits don't have to pay taxes on *profit*. They still have to pay sales tax (in most places) and FICA/Medicare tax, and all the stupid taxes on the phone bill, etc.
Why isn't it better with it left in?
It's not "insightful" to not get the joke.
No, that's not why. Programming costs are about a quarter of the average cable bill. But I absolutely agree with you: a la carte channel selection would be best for the consumer.
The argument isn't that something's *good* because it's "natural". The argument is that it's stupid to criminalize something that occurs naturally. I notice that possession of snake poison, cancer, or meteorites is not illegal.
No. If it is, then so is the sticky tape on seams of disk drives that show they've been taken apart. If your "Orwell" comment is directed at Apple, they're not the only ones - Blackberry devices also have a liquid sensor. 'm sure other devices do also.
There are not 350 million people in the US.
Everything that hadn't been discovered in 1787 isn't automatically fair game for the federal government. It isn't a list of things that are forbidden to government, with the implication that the rest is allowed - it's an enumerated list of the powers allowed it, with the explicit instructions that anything else *isn't*. You don't have an inalienable right to fat bandwidth, I'm sorry. No reasonable interpretation of the Constitution says that you do. And I see a lot of "teabagger" insults directed mostly at knee-jerks on the right by knee-jerks on the left. Looking at a few "tea party" web sites shows that their limited set of issues is almost completely limited to opposing new taxes and opposing growth of government. Disagree with those things if you like, but they're not such ridiculous positions that you can dismiss everyone who agrees with them by name-calling. Or, in your case, by dismissing the position of someone *you* think sounds like them, also by name calling.
... if they really were doing their job they'd mandate *150* Mbps.
That's the most interesting question in this thread so far. It only really applies to historical data, though. The expensive stuff is the real-time data, and I'd argue that its value lies as much in its timeliness as in the 'facts' it contains. I doubt that the product created by a system designed to collect and compile it so quickly would be considered just 'a list of facts'. You can find redistributable, freely-available fifteen-minute old data all over the place. But detailed historical data, say, every second of pricing from a time period ten years ago, isn't easy to find for free but would appear to be just a list of facts.
Oh, I agree 100% about legislative bullshit like Disney paying to extend copyright, or ADM buying ethanol subsidies (or mandates!). Congress (and state legislatures) are out-and-out whores. Of course it happens in the justice system, it's just not as pervasive.
Are you suggesting they "bought" the judge?
Obviously you believe more in the integrity of the media source you agree with, as do the equally head-in-the-sand on the other side of the spectrum. Shooting the messenger - dismissing a story without even considering the information it contains, because you often disagree with the source or even the source's motives - is very intellectually lazy.
Reagan increased taxes?