Yea, that's where I first picked it up, but have since cancelled my cable subscription, and as far as I'm aware Velocity isn't available in online streaming format...
1) Ban all HFT software. Period. Not a bad idea anyway, IMO, since HFT software tends to give the big fish an unfair advantage over, well, everyone else.
2) Tax the living shit out of all trades. When the day traders bitch, tell them to get off their lazy asses and contribute to society like the rest of us.
I wasn't directly replying to your single post. More to all the replies in this thread as a whole. I clicked the wrong "reply to this".
Yea, I noticed that after posting, and unfortunately/. doesn't have a "delete my inane post because I thought better of it" option.
according to Law "intent to sell"=dealer and this is based on quantity of controlled substance. So, 1 dealer = many users based on weight. That is the stat I would like to see how much weight is seized from dealers vs users.
Ha, I like how you capitalized "Law." Makes it seem like more of an institution, which it has become.
As for the question of weight, I agree that's one worth asking.
Seems to me that the statistic you provide is meaningless unless we know the numerical relationship between users and makers/sellers. Seems to me to be quite likely that 4:1 is too low of a ratio; likely the DEA is busting a higher percentage of makers/sellers than users.
Seems to me, if true you should be able to easily provide statistics which back your supposition, as I already have.
Else, it's fair to assume you're merely bloviating, and thus ignore your chatter accordingly.
I mostly agree with you, but I'd actually mod GP up if I hadn't posted already. I believe that opinions I disagree with should be widely seen and thoroughly shredded, all in public. I usually only mod down stuff that's either totally incoherent or offtopic, uses way too many personal attacks, or is so obviously wrong and offensive that it could only be trolling.
Hmm, interesting philosophy... Perhaps there should be a "+1 This Guy's a Jackass" mod...
Kinda makes a person wonder what subjectively unacceptable activity you're into... Especially considering that, statistically, users of the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco kill exponentially more "innocent" people, than users of all other drugs combined.
That's not an argument in favor of legalizing drugs, but an argument for restricting the access of tobacco and alcohol. Such as only selling it to adults, in bars, outlawing attempts to market it to children and so on.
...
Which we already do, and yet hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year due to the use of said drugs regardless.
Considering that arresting end users is pretty much the DEA's bread-and-butter
It is not a valid conclusion that they are targetting end-users because the charges are possession. Possession is a lot easier to prove than sale or manufacture, and sale and manufacture generally also involve possession (its theoretically possible to sell, but not manufacture, without ever having possession, of course.)
No; You get distribution charges for nothing more than having the same kind of drug in different containers. Sale is easy to prove (i.e., cops buy drugs from drug dealer - bam: proof of sale).
Not sure what your point is here, but if what you're trying to say is that those arrested for possession were actually distributing/manufacturing drugs, then you have no idea what the hell you're on about. Otherwise, your statement is unparsable.
How exactly would your theoretical honeypot work? Only buyers need to provide anything remotely identifiable (e.g., shipping address). Do you think the DEA cares about going after kids who buy $100 worth of LSD?
(2010 - crime - drug manufacturing arrests) Of the 1,638,846 arrests for drug law violations in 2010, 81.9% (1,342,215) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 18.1% (296,631) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.
and allow them to kill themselves if they wish to.
All the while destroying other people's lives while they're high, breaking into people's homes so they can steal to feed their habit, and a whole host of other issues, including medical as their bodies get ravaged but which I have to pay for (thanks Roberts).
Right, because A) all drug users are violent criminals who steal for a living, and B) forcing otherwise law abiding citizens to deal with career criminals in order to enjoy a mind-altering substance the government has decided, in a fair and just manner of course, ist verboten, is totally the right way to deal with it.
That, or you're spouting hyperbole based on your limited understanding of the topic.
I'll get modded down but don't care. What we need is to be more brutal. If you're found transporting drugs, like in Singapore, that's the death sentence. None of this 5 years where my tax dollars are used to give them food and shelter. Whack 'em.
Aah, how quintessentially un-American. You deserve to be modded into oblivion.
"These other people engage in an activity I know nothing about other than the fact that it's a minor inconvenience to me, and so they should be executed by the State!"
Kinda makes a person wonder what subjectively unacceptable activity you're into... Especially considering that, statistically, users of the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco kill exponentially more "innocent" people, than users of all other drugs combined.
You get rid of enough mules and the supply dries up.
Where there is demand, there will always, ALWAYS be supply. To claim otherwise is to expound an utter lack of understanding in regard to the topic of economics.
Tell that to all the people on the bus that die when the bus driver wrecks the bus because he/she is high. Or the on coming car that runs into the bus because the driver of the car is high. I doubt that the person taking the drugs would necessarily be the only one to die as a result of their actions.
That anecdote would hold far more weight if not for the immense number of people killed on the roads every year by drivers who aren't high on illegal drugs.
sad you think voting is anything but smoke and mirrors to keep the proles busy.
Well, personally I feel that the soap, ballot, and jury boxes have all failed us, and thus we are left with but one more box to open in defense of (what's left of) our Liberties.
However, I also tend to get lambasted by Uncle Toms when I posit that particular ideology, so I figured I'd at least make an attempt to appease the status quo.
Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention?
In this case it's true, because I'm not the one advocating mindless violence.
It's never true. You're making an assumption based on your pre-decided notions about how you interpret my words. Like the narcissistic douchebag you apparently are.
Yes, you are a narcissist. Know how I can tell? By how adamantly you scream about how your opinion is 'right,' and how 'wrong' I am, no matter how I explain it.
You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with
And you didn't have to respond to the post you did either. In fact, you didn't have to read Slashdot at all.
True, and thanks for that, Captain Obvious, but FYI, I'm not the one bitching about the other person's lack of contribution, now am I?
Feel free to rant on all you want, I'm done with your self-obsessed ass.
Ok, my question was badly worded. Everyone knows about condensation. But then why would you expect most of us to think about it before powering a machine? I mean, unless we've tripped on that one once or twice?
Logic.
- It's common knowledge that powering on wet electronics is a great way to let out the magic smoke, right? Right.
- It's also common knowledge that condensation forms on cold/warm items entering a warm/cold environment (respectively), right? Right.
Therefore, knowing that electronics which are brought from a cold environment into a warm environment are going to form condensation, and that moisture is bad for powered electronics, the logical assumption is that plugging them in whilst still covered in condensation would be inadvisable, no?
Ok, so maybe if you've lived your whole life in a tropical zone where the temperature variation is seldom more than a couple degrees (and no one, apparently, owns an air conditioner)... or perhaps if you're in your 80's or 90's and have never actually been around all that many electronics, you get a pass. For everyone else, however, I consider that to be basic knowledge.
You actually believe that if a third party achieved a significant voice in government, that they wouldn't sell out to corporations just as the two main parties have?
Not necessarily, and FYI, I never said anything to that effect. Learn to read what's written, instead of inferring what you want to think is there.
What about you? Do you actually believe it's better to be a good little wage slave who doesn't challenge the status quo, rather than at least attempt to cast off your shackles?
If not, why bust my balls over pointing out that which has the potential to change the political landscape for the better?
Let me ask you another question in return. I think I deserve an answer, since I answered yours: Why do you think everybody should know what you think is obvious?
I'm not usually the guy to post the "bitch about Slashdot" troll post, but seriously guys: It's not necessary to post something everytime someone from APPL, MSFT, or GOOG wipes their ass.
Whereas the story I posted the other day about how Valve is updating their user agreement to ban class-action lawsuits, ala Sony/EA, magically disappears from the firehose about 20 minutes after submission.
Either malice or stupidity, either way not a complement...
Slashdot Mirror
Its on the Velocity channel a lot.
Yea, that's where I first picked it up, but have since cancelled my cable subscription, and as far as I'm aware Velocity isn't available in online streaming format...
You should checkout Sherlock and TopGear.
Question: Can you stream Wheeler Dealers? It airs on Discovery UK, if that matters...
I love that show.
1) Ban all HFT software. Period.
Not a bad idea anyway, IMO, since HFT software tends to give the big fish an unfair advantage over, well, everyone else.
2) Tax the living shit out of all trades. When the day traders bitch, tell them to get off their lazy asses and contribute to society like the rest of us.
Midwest has tornadoes.
We have a solution for that.
Call me crazy...
You're crazy, dude.
With a capital C.
I wasn't directly replying to your single post. More to all the replies in this thread as a whole. I clicked the wrong "reply to this".
Yea, I noticed that after posting, and unfortunately /. doesn't have a "delete my inane post because I thought better of it" option.
according to Law "intent to sell"=dealer and this is based on quantity of controlled substance. So, 1 dealer = many users based on weight. That is the stat I would like to see how much weight is seized from dealers vs users.
Ha, I like how you capitalized "Law." Makes it seem like more of an institution, which it has become.
As for the question of weight, I agree that's one worth asking.
Oh, wait a minute. He left office almost 4 years ago....
Doesn't matter - he's the one who made it law, so you're perfectly justified in taking him to task for it.
Just like how anyone blaming Obama for his failure* to not only abolish said unconstitutional laws, but expand upon them, is equally justified.
* failure to us. I'm sure the corporate masters who really run this nation consider it a rousing success.
Title says it all. The government should not be above the law.
It's not.
Or rather, wouldn't be, if the People refused to allow it.
Umm... Okay...
Neat story, but what does that have to do with the fact that the vast majority of narcotics-related arrests are end users, not dealers?
Seems to me that the statistic you provide is meaningless unless we know the numerical relationship between users and makers/sellers. Seems to me to be quite likely that 4:1 is too low of a ratio; likely the DEA is busting a higher percentage of makers/sellers than users.
Seems to me, if true you should be able to easily provide statistics which back your supposition, as I already have.
Else, it's fair to assume you're merely bloviating, and thus ignore your chatter accordingly.
I mostly agree with you, but I'd actually mod GP up if I hadn't posted already. I believe that opinions I disagree with should be widely seen and thoroughly shredded, all in public. I usually only mod down stuff that's either totally incoherent or offtopic, uses way too many personal attacks, or is so obviously wrong and offensive that it could only be trolling.
Hmm, interesting philosophy... Perhaps there should be a "+1 This Guy's a Jackass" mod...
Well played.
Kinda makes a person wonder what subjectively unacceptable activity you're into... Especially considering that, statistically, users of the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco kill exponentially more "innocent" people, than users of all other drugs combined.
That's not an argument in favor of legalizing drugs, but an argument for restricting the access of tobacco and alcohol. Such as only selling it to adults, in bars, outlawing attempts to market it to children and so on.
...
Which we already do, and yet hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year due to the use of said drugs regardless.
I'm sorry, but did you have a point?
No; You get distribution charges for nothing more than having the same kind of drug in different containers. Sale is easy to prove (i.e., cops buy drugs from drug dealer - bam: proof of sale).
Not sure what your point is here, but if what you're trying to say is that those arrested for possession were actually distributing/manufacturing drugs, then you have no idea what the hell you're on about. Otherwise, your statement is unparsable.
A UN report said "the global drug trade generated an estimated US$321.6 billion in 2003."
... and that was a decade ago.
$2 million doesn't even register.
How exactly would your theoretical honeypot work? Only buyers need to provide anything remotely identifiable (e.g., shipping address). Do you think the DEA cares about going after kids who buy $100 worth of LSD?
Considering that arresting end users is pretty much the DEA's bread-and-butter, I'd say yes, yes they do.
From above link:
and allow them to kill themselves if they wish to. All the while destroying other people's lives while they're high, breaking into people's homes so they can steal to feed their habit, and a whole host of other issues, including medical as their bodies get ravaged but which I have to pay for (thanks Roberts).
Right, because A) all drug users are violent criminals who steal for a living, and B) forcing otherwise law abiding citizens to deal with career criminals in order to enjoy a mind-altering substance the government has decided, in a fair and just manner of course, ist verboten, is totally the right way to deal with it.
That, or you're spouting hyperbole based on your limited understanding of the topic.
I'll get modded down but don't care. What we need is to be more brutal. If you're found transporting drugs, like in Singapore, that's the death sentence. None of this 5 years where my tax dollars are used to give them food and shelter. Whack 'em.
Aah, how quintessentially un-American. You deserve to be modded into oblivion.
"These other people engage in an activity I know nothing about other than the fact that it's a minor inconvenience to me, and so they should be executed by the State!"
Kinda makes a person wonder what subjectively unacceptable activity you're into... Especially considering that, statistically, users of the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco kill exponentially more "innocent" people, than users of all other drugs combined.
You get rid of enough mules and the supply dries up.
Where there is demand, there will always, ALWAYS be supply. To claim otherwise is to expound an utter lack of understanding in regard to the topic of economics.
Tell that to all the people on the bus that die when the bus driver wrecks the bus because he/she is high. Or the on coming car that runs into the bus because the driver of the car is high. I doubt that the person taking the drugs would necessarily be the only one to die as a result of their actions.
That anecdote would hold far more weight if not for the immense number of people killed on the roads every year by drivers who aren't high on illegal drugs.
To that end... put down the goddamn cell phone.
Your view of the world is amazing. I wish you luck with your endeavors.
Huh, never had it called that before...
I appreciate your consideration, and return the good wishes.
Might as well have a world's greatest virgin competition...
...
Which makes me ponder, by what metric would we measure the "world's greatest virgin?" Ability to remain abstinent in the face of constant temptation?
Damn you, AC, you just stole my afternoon...
sad you think voting is anything but smoke and mirrors to keep the proles busy.
Well, personally I feel that the soap, ballot, and jury boxes have all failed us, and thus we are left with but one more box to open in defense of (what's left of) our Liberties.
However, I also tend to get lambasted by Uncle Toms when I posit that particular ideology, so I figured I'd at least make an attempt to appease the status quo.
Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention?
In this case it's true, because I'm not the one advocating mindless violence.
It's never true. You're making an assumption based on your pre-decided notions about how you interpret my words. Like the narcissistic douchebag you apparently are.
Yes, you are a narcissist. Know how I can tell? By how adamantly you scream about how your opinion is 'right,' and how 'wrong' I am, no matter how I explain it.
You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with
And you didn't have to respond to the post you did either. In fact, you didn't have to read Slashdot at all.
True, and thanks for that, Captain Obvious, but FYI, I'm not the one bitching about the other person's lack of contribution, now am I?
Feel free to rant on all you want, I'm done with your self-obsessed ass.
Ok, my question was badly worded. Everyone knows about condensation. But then why would you expect most of us to think about it before powering a machine? I mean, unless we've tripped on that one once or twice?
Logic.
- It's common knowledge that powering on wet electronics is a great way to let out the magic smoke, right? Right.
- It's also common knowledge that condensation forms on cold/warm items entering a warm/cold environment (respectively), right? Right.
Therefore, knowing that electronics which are brought from a cold environment into a warm environment are going to form condensation, and that moisture is bad for powered electronics, the logical assumption is that plugging them in whilst still covered in condensation would be inadvisable, no?
Ok, so maybe if you've lived your whole life in a tropical zone where the temperature variation is seldom more than a couple degrees (and no one, apparently, owns an air conditioner)... or perhaps if you're in your 80's or 90's and have never actually been around all that many electronics, you get a pass. For everyone else, however, I consider that to be basic knowledge.
To paraphrase XKCD - Logic: It works, bitches!
You actually believe that if a third party achieved a significant voice in government, that they wouldn't sell out to corporations just as the two main parties have?
Not necessarily, and FYI, I never said anything to that effect. Learn to read what's written, instead of inferring what you want to think is there.
What about you? Do you actually believe it's better to be a good little wage slave who doesn't challenge the status quo, rather than at least attempt to cast off your shackles?
If not, why bust my balls over pointing out that which has the potential to change the political landscape for the better?
Let me ask you another question in return. I think I deserve an answer, since I answered yours: Why do you think everybody should know what you think is obvious?
3rd grade science class
I'm not usually the guy to post the "bitch about Slashdot" troll post, but seriously guys: It's not necessary to post something everytime someone from APPL, MSFT, or GOOG wipes their ass.
Whereas the story I posted the other day about how Valve is updating their user agreement to ban class-action lawsuits, ala Sony/EA, magically disappears from the firehose about 20 minutes after submission.
Either malice or stupidity, either way not a complement...