You realize you pay tax on profits, not revenue. This affects how much money your are making not if your making money. Though this does affect the amount of investment done in the future.
Since we cant trust people to report their own earnings properly how can we trust these single person accounting firms. More audits for those who do not use the big 5? Oh wait, after enron it was 4. Damn who can we trust again?
Not all research has the same cost to benefit. There is a lot of structure as to what and who gets grants. To say this structure cannot be made more efficient (same money produces more results) seems false.
The steam engine may not have been able to compete with slaves originally but over time its uses and structure evolved. Those who depended on slaves had none of the infrastructure to efficiently deploy steam engines and lagged behind those who did.
By depending on a short term imbalance (such as low wage rates in other countries or a 10 to 1 slave ratio) we are not focusing on creating a system that will function once imbalance disappears.
Off the top of my head, genetically engineered crops which allow the same amount of acreage to feed many times the amount of people owe an obvious debt to evolutionary biology. Many people oppose such genetic engineering, however, the opposition does not stem from the quarter that is being spared famine, so I feel it should be ignored until everyone has the luxury of abundant food.
Perhaps the other 75% are hardcore supporters of natural selection:)
I misinterpreted that as a statement of fact rather than a summary of the evidence provided.
If they are treating it as fact, then clearly they are misusing it. If they used as a 60% accurate indicator (50% being random), then that still leaves privacy concerns.:)
Notice how Im not defending them, merely providing a guess at the logic behind their decision to use the polygraph.
Their implementation of the polygraph is ridiculous on so many levels. However, if I were to come to their defense. Then I would say they are taking a lesson from Sun Tzu "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak". This being a case of the latter.
"Various techniques for detecting deception have been suggested or might be used as substitutes for or supplements to the polygraph... Some of the potential alternatives show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph." From the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report
Perhaps they are doing the best with what they have, to get the job done.
*I didnt read the report, just enough to back up my point:)
The only data they provide is from a CHOSEN non-consecutive 5 week period and their return was 8.6%. If each trade was expected to make 1% in the next 20 minutes then this system may be no better than random. There is not enough information to determine if they did a proper analysis (ie number of trades, longer period, random period, transaction costs, ensure that the strategy is scalable).
The other strange thing is that they are comparing long term investment strategies (mutual funds) to day trading. These are radically different things. A mutual fund can expect to make around 6-8% a year (similar to the S&P), while this short term strategy should make 89%(52/5 * 8.6%) a year. This is occurs because it profits off short term price inaccuracies, which always exist.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize you pay tax on profits, not revenue. This affects how much money your are making not if your making money. Though this does affect the amount of investment done in the future.
Since we cant trust people to report their own earnings properly how can we trust these single person accounting firms. More audits for those who do not use the big 5? Oh wait, after enron it was 4. Damn who can we trust again?
They are trying to limit their exports as every other country is tempted to limit their imports.
Ban them so you can watch the 1 minute highlight in peace?
The "locked" articles are guarded by ideologues whose views differ from the "mischief makers and ideologues" Wikipedia hates.
Such as the ideals of truth?
Perhaps the users whos info was leaked could sue and send a nice big cheque to the security team.
Not all research has the same cost to benefit. There is a lot of structure as to what and who gets grants. To say this structure cannot be made more efficient (same money produces more results) seems false.
The steam engine may not have been able to compete with slaves originally but over time its uses and structure evolved. Those who depended on slaves had none of the infrastructure to efficiently deploy steam engines and lagged behind those who did.
By depending on a short term imbalance (such as low wage rates in other countries or a 10 to 1 slave ratio) we are not focusing on creating a system that will function once imbalance disappears.
Off the top of my head, genetically engineered crops which allow the same amount of acreage to feed many times the amount of people owe an obvious debt to evolutionary biology. Many people oppose such genetic engineering, however, the opposition does not stem from the quarter that is being spared famine, so I feel it should be ignored until everyone has the luxury of abundant food.
Perhaps the other 75% are hardcore supporters of natural selection :)
AI uses it as a metaphor if not the basis for the idea.
The free market is notoriously short sighted. This is one of the areas governments are needed.
I misinterpreted that as a statement of fact rather than a summary of the evidence provided.
If they are treating it as fact, then clearly they are misusing it. If they used as a 60% accurate indicator (50% being random), then that still leaves privacy concerns. :)
Does /. have its own formal language or will english suffice?
Notice how Im not defending them, merely providing a guess at the logic behind their decision to use the polygraph.
Their implementation of the polygraph is ridiculous on so many levels. However, if I were to come to their defense. Then I would say they are taking a lesson from Sun Tzu "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak". This being a case of the latter.
*Quote may originate from the 20th century
Except it's actually so bad for their intended use that it's a hindrance to their job, not a help.
Source?
What could be a better test?
"Various techniques for detecting deception have been suggested or might be used as substitutes for or supplements to the polygraph... Some of the potential alternatives show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph." From the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report
:)
Perhaps they are doing the best with what they have, to get the job done.
*I didnt read the report, just enough to back up my point
Actually, some brokers provide apis to their service that would allow you to hook up an algorithm. The one I know of is interactive brokers.
You seem to use the exact same hyperbole that you claim is so harmful. This is a needless article that is preaching to the choir.
Seriously, there are blatant scams advertised and you write an article about a product emphasizing its need.
The only data they provide is from a CHOSEN non-consecutive 5 week period and their return was 8.6%. If each trade was expected to make 1% in the next 20 minutes then this system may be no better than random. There is not enough information to determine if they did a proper analysis (ie number of trades, longer period, random period, transaction costs, ensure that the strategy is scalable).
The other strange thing is that they are comparing long term investment strategies (mutual funds) to day trading. These are radically different things. A mutual fund can expect to make around 6-8% a year (similar to the S&P), while this short term strategy should make 89%(52/5 * 8.6%) a year. This is occurs because it profits off short term price inaccuracies, which always exist.