There are 9 members of Fedora's board, 4 of which are appointed by Red Hat. Red Hat appoints a chairman with veto power over any Fedora board decision. I suspect if you tell Red Hat to remove something from Fedora they could do it.
Red Hat is in the business of selling linux support to companies. It is not too surprising that some of those companies (who very well may have been the target of SQL injection exploits) have said in return for our businesses, remove all software that supports SQL injection from your repos. This is a useless measure for sure, but it may make the companies happy. I would suspect this is the case given the unanimity of the board's approval.
Yes, thats the actual US unemployment rate when you take into account those who gave up looking. And in return for outsourcing jobs he cites $10B in export deals. Really? That's 1/8 of AAPL's yearly revenue. That's 1/60 of what the Fed just printed to buy Treasury bonds.
In a sailboat or iceboat, to travel faster than the wind you head about 45 degrees off of the direction from which the wind is coming (called 'reaching'). The sails then work as airfoils, creating lower pressure on the outside of the sails, which in conjunction with the keel propel you forward damn fast if you choose (iceboats sometime 4-5 times the speed of the wind).
However, when you are 'running' (heading directly downwind) the sails are not working as airfoils, but function merely as a wall the wind hits that propels you forward. You don't go faster than the wind in this case. The article specifically mentions heading directly downwind.
I just meant in economics you don't need a special word for buying stuff and trying to sell it for a higher price. And I'm not a scalper, so it doesn't follow I'd support scalping. However I did buy tickets to a grateful dead concert from a scalper back in the day. I waited till the show had started and got the tickets for less than the scalper paid.....I guess we can agree that ended well...cheers.
I do grasp the lack of collaboration. But let me ask you a question. Company A sells stock directly to the public. Is there anything stopping banks from buying up that stock and trying to resell it at a higher price? Nope, so it can pay to work with the underwriter. The point is when what you sell starts to support a secondary market, the underwriter relationship will form - whether you approve or not. And I don't want to change your mind.....close your 401K and sell all the assets you own....lest they go up and you make money....;)....maybe the disconnect is that you see stock as a different thing that a phone...but stock is just a claim on the income generated when then company sells a phone....anyway, cheers
Im not saying underwriting isn't necessary, I'm saying underwriting and what is termed scalping both serve the same purpose. And let's take a second to look at stock underwriting (scalping). Friday 10/8/2010 6,400,000 shares of GEDU were sold in a IPO priced at $10.50 per share (i just picked the latest IPO but this works for most). GEDU closed friday at $12.20 per share. This means the company lost 6,400,000*(12.2-10.5) = $10,880,000 by the underwriter pricing the shares too low. This is in addition to IPO fees to the underwriter of about 7% (and did you know no matter what underwriter you go to you always pay about 7% - collusion). See research by Jay Ritter at the University of Florida for more about IPO underpricing. So pardon me, but buying a few iphones and trying to sell them for more money is no different than what most people try to do all day.
They don't have monopoly rights under the law, and rightly so. If you can get around the one per customer rule (how hard is that because it is not legally enforced) you can buy and resell the iphone. This is because we still have some moderate voices in government who can see through the name calling (and have probably taken a couple economics courses as well). And speaking of Brits, there is a Brit right now attempting to corner the market for cocoa beans (what you would call 'scalping'). Again, perfectly legal and rightly so.
Ok, a couple of points:
(1) Now, yes stock underwriters provide a service, in particular they price security issues and provide liquidity. But hold on, thats exactly what scalpers do! They provide liquidity by buying all the iphones, and then price and sell the iphones. Just like traditional underwriters the scalpers take all the risk - what they don't sell they lose. The only difference here is Apple is saying 'Whoa, I didn't hire an underwriter!' so you are a dirty scalper. Apple is asserting they have monopoly rights to underwriting their products. They don't.
(2) Apple can make more iphones. So the analogy to concert ticket sales in not apt. If the 'scalpers' buy all the iphones, apple can make more to satisfy customers. Now, when the scalpers turn around and dump the iphones this will pressure the retail price, which is what apple doesn't like. So apple doesn't like scalpers because meeting scalper + retail demand may lead to lower prices - they lose price control. But whenever an underwriter gets in the middle, the seller loses price control. And this is absolutely to the detriment of the seller in IPO underwriting too. Research has shown IPO shares are consistently underpriced.
Lastly, my point is throwing out pejorative names is misleading. Maybe we should call these people 'iphone liquidity providers' so they can get a fair discussion on their merits, and are not maligned from the start.
So when you buy an ipnone and resell it you are a 'scalper' with all the negative connotation. However if you buy IPO stock form a company and resell it you are an 'Underwriter', and if you buy cars from a company and resell it you are a 'Car dealership'.
Brilliant??? This is standard bookmaking; it has been around since the cave men. And it absolutely doesn't matter who wins the bet for the bookmaker (house). The odds are set such that you can find a person to take each side. Someone bets $1.01 on aliens with payoff of $100 if aliens occur, the other bets $99.01 on no aliens with payoff $100 if no aliens occur. You take $0.02 immediately for the transaction. Then at the end of the year someone wins, who cares who, you pay them the $100. And yes you can earn the whopping 0.251% interest (1 year treasury) on the $100 over the year.
This type of thing always has unintended consequences. I bet the birds use smell to locate or attract mates. They'll apply the deodorant, no more baby birds, they go extinct. The researchers will shrug, say 'we didn't see that coming', and start working on their next grant: snorkels for manatees maybe.
I think you could do an introduction to cryptography. Cover some basic ideas like trapdoor functions and public keys. The general concept can be understood with very basic math (it's easier to multiply numbers than divide them). Moreover, I think the topic would motivate students to further study.
They should open a subsidiary that funds risky mortgages. Sell it as an offshoot of their core mapping business. When it fails get bailed out and give everyone bonuses. It's called finance.
An allergy is a hypersensitivity to something in the environment. The reaction to an allergy is predictable and rapid. In an autoimmune disorder the body attacks itself. The reaction to celiac is not predictable a priori and not necessarily rapid. Hence the trouble in diagnosing the disease.
What I'm trying to point out is that if you have celiac and you eat gluten nothing may happen. The symptoms are long term. You have celiac and eat gluten for years your bones lose strength and you break your leg playing soccer. The cause and effect are hard to put together (hence leading to under-diagnosis).
This is very different from hay fever where pollen is high and you get a runny nose or whatnot.
First, this research is great.
However I want to point out that celiac disease is not an allergy, it is an autoimmune disorder. Calling celiac an allergy makes people think if they have it they will break out into hives or their face will swell if they eat gluten. This contributes to most with celiac not knowing they have the disease. According to U Chicago's Celiac Disease Center, 97% of those with Celiac are undiagnosed (http://www.celiacdisease.net/assets/pdf/CDCFactSheets%20FactsFigures%20v3.pdf). Examples of symptoms of celiac are fatigue, mental disorders, abdominal pain, joint pain... a full list is here: http://www.celiacdisease.net/assets/pdf/CDCFactSheetsSymptoms2.pdf
Also about 1 in 133 americans have celiac, however 41% of adults and 60% of children are asymptomatic.
There are HFs using this strategy now using dedicated reuters feeds and trading in microseconds. This means new information is impounded into stock prices well within a second.
In the article they used yahoo news and minute by minute stock data? That's laughable. I suspect the reason for their returns is that they they are indexing the time information arrived, and the price you could trade at that instant incorrectly.
In other words the information arrived at t + 5 seconds, and they execute the trade at the quotes available at time t.
Also I suppose they are not including margin and transaction costs, reasonable slippage, and risk-adjusting their returns?
Slashdot Mirror
There are 9 members of Fedora's board, 4 of which are appointed by Red Hat. Red Hat appoints a chairman with veto power over any Fedora board decision. I suspect if you tell Red Hat to remove something from Fedora they could do it.
Red Hat is in the business of selling linux support to companies. It is not too surprising that some of those companies (who very well may have been the target of SQL injection exploits) have said in return for our businesses, remove all software that supports SQL injection from your repos. This is a useless measure for sure, but it may make the companies happy. I would suspect this is the case given the unanimity of the board's approval.
Yes, thats the actual US unemployment rate when you take into account those who gave up looking. And in return for outsourcing jobs he cites $10B in export deals. Really? That's 1/8 of AAPL's yearly revenue. That's 1/60 of what the Fed just printed to buy Treasury bonds.
In a sailboat or iceboat, to travel faster than the wind you head about 45 degrees off of the direction from which the wind is coming (called 'reaching'). The sails then work as airfoils, creating lower pressure on the outside of the sails, which in conjunction with the keel propel you forward damn fast if you choose (iceboats sometime 4-5 times the speed of the wind). However, when you are 'running' (heading directly downwind) the sails are not working as airfoils, but function merely as a wall the wind hits that propels you forward. You don't go faster than the wind in this case. The article specifically mentions heading directly downwind.
I just meant in economics you don't need a special word for buying stuff and trying to sell it for a higher price. And I'm not a scalper, so it doesn't follow I'd support scalping. However I did buy tickets to a grateful dead concert from a scalper back in the day. I waited till the show had started and got the tickets for less than the scalper paid.....I guess we can agree that ended well...cheers.
I do grasp the lack of collaboration. But let me ask you a question. Company A sells stock directly to the public. Is there anything stopping banks from buying up that stock and trying to resell it at a higher price? Nope, so it can pay to work with the underwriter. The point is when what you sell starts to support a secondary market, the underwriter relationship will form - whether you approve or not. And I don't want to change your mind.....close your 401K and sell all the assets you own....lest they go up and you make money....;)....maybe the disconnect is that you see stock as a different thing that a phone...but stock is just a claim on the income generated when then company sells a phone....anyway, cheers
Im not saying underwriting isn't necessary, I'm saying underwriting and what is termed scalping both serve the same purpose. And let's take a second to look at stock underwriting (scalping). Friday 10/8/2010 6,400,000 shares of GEDU were sold in a IPO priced at $10.50 per share (i just picked the latest IPO but this works for most). GEDU closed friday at $12.20 per share. This means the company lost 6,400,000*(12.2-10.5) = $10,880,000 by the underwriter pricing the shares too low. This is in addition to IPO fees to the underwriter of about 7% (and did you know no matter what underwriter you go to you always pay about 7% - collusion). See research by Jay Ritter at the University of Florida for more about IPO underpricing. So pardon me, but buying a few iphones and trying to sell them for more money is no different than what most people try to do all day.
They don't have monopoly rights under the law, and rightly so. If you can get around the one per customer rule (how hard is that because it is not legally enforced) you can buy and resell the iphone. This is because we still have some moderate voices in government who can see through the name calling (and have probably taken a couple economics courses as well). And speaking of Brits, there is a Brit right now attempting to corner the market for cocoa beans (what you would call 'scalping'). Again, perfectly legal and rightly so.
Ok, a couple of points: (1) Now, yes stock underwriters provide a service, in particular they price security issues and provide liquidity. But hold on, thats exactly what scalpers do! They provide liquidity by buying all the iphones, and then price and sell the iphones. Just like traditional underwriters the scalpers take all the risk - what they don't sell they lose. The only difference here is Apple is saying 'Whoa, I didn't hire an underwriter!' so you are a dirty scalper. Apple is asserting they have monopoly rights to underwriting their products. They don't. (2) Apple can make more iphones. So the analogy to concert ticket sales in not apt. If the 'scalpers' buy all the iphones, apple can make more to satisfy customers. Now, when the scalpers turn around and dump the iphones this will pressure the retail price, which is what apple doesn't like. So apple doesn't like scalpers because meeting scalper + retail demand may lead to lower prices - they lose price control. But whenever an underwriter gets in the middle, the seller loses price control. And this is absolutely to the detriment of the seller in IPO underwriting too. Research has shown IPO shares are consistently underpriced. Lastly, my point is throwing out pejorative names is misleading. Maybe we should call these people 'iphone liquidity providers' so they can get a fair discussion on their merits, and are not maligned from the start.
So when you buy an ipnone and resell it you are a 'scalper' with all the negative connotation. However if you buy IPO stock form a company and resell it you are an 'Underwriter', and if you buy cars from a company and resell it you are a 'Car dealership'.
Brilliant??? This is standard bookmaking; it has been around since the cave men. And it absolutely doesn't matter who wins the bet for the bookmaker (house). The odds are set such that you can find a person to take each side. Someone bets $1.01 on aliens with payoff of $100 if aliens occur, the other bets $99.01 on no aliens with payoff $100 if no aliens occur. You take $0.02 immediately for the transaction. Then at the end of the year someone wins, who cares who, you pay them the $100. And yes you can earn the whopping 0.251% interest (1 year treasury) on the $100 over the year.
This type of thing always has unintended consequences. I bet the birds use smell to locate or attract mates. They'll apply the deodorant, no more baby birds, they go extinct. The researchers will shrug, say 'we didn't see that coming', and start working on their next grant: snorkels for manatees maybe.
Public Enemy never would have gotten of the ground. '911 is timely and effective'....just doesn't work. God Bless America.
I think you could do an introduction to cryptography. Cover some basic ideas like trapdoor functions and public keys. The general concept can be understood with very basic math (it's easier to multiply numbers than divide them). Moreover, I think the topic would motivate students to further study.
They should open a subsidiary that funds risky mortgages. Sell it as an offshoot of their core mapping business. When it fails get bailed out and give everyone bonuses. It's called finance.
Dude, it's 'incite' not 'insight'.
An allergy is a hypersensitivity to something in the environment. The reaction to an allergy is predictable and rapid. In an autoimmune disorder the body attacks itself. The reaction to celiac is not predictable a priori and not necessarily rapid. Hence the trouble in diagnosing the disease.
What I'm trying to point out is that if you have celiac and you eat gluten nothing may happen. The symptoms are long term. You have celiac and eat gluten for years your bones lose strength and you break your leg playing soccer. The cause and effect are hard to put together (hence leading to under-diagnosis). This is very different from hay fever where pollen is high and you get a runny nose or whatnot.
First, this research is great. However I want to point out that celiac disease is not an allergy, it is an autoimmune disorder. Calling celiac an allergy makes people think if they have it they will break out into hives or their face will swell if they eat gluten. This contributes to most with celiac not knowing they have the disease. According to U Chicago's Celiac Disease Center, 97% of those with Celiac are undiagnosed (http://www.celiacdisease.net/assets/pdf/CDCFactSheets%20FactsFigures%20v3.pdf). Examples of symptoms of celiac are fatigue, mental disorders, abdominal pain, joint pain... a full list is here: http://www.celiacdisease.net/assets/pdf/CDCFactSheetsSymptoms2.pdf Also about 1 in 133 americans have celiac, however 41% of adults and 60% of children are asymptomatic.
There are HFs using this strategy now using dedicated reuters feeds and trading in microseconds. This means new information is impounded into stock prices well within a second. In the article they used yahoo news and minute by minute stock data? That's laughable. I suspect the reason for their returns is that they they are indexing the time information arrived, and the price you could trade at that instant incorrectly. In other words the information arrived at t + 5 seconds, and they execute the trade at the quotes available at time t. Also I suppose they are not including margin and transaction costs, reasonable slippage, and risk-adjusting their returns?