The TP got some creds in my book because during the recent govstop/debt scaremongering lots of corp interests were hammering on them to cut out the obstructionism.
It's a small sign that there are some interests in the TP that aren't totally in corp pockets. Which would be different from the rest of US pol-world.
Of course that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that their ideas are any good. Most of what you hear out their elected officials is pure demagoguery.
You would be surprised how many people have access to proprietary or classified information.
The numbers are so high, and there is so much of it I've reached the conclusion that the only rational explanation is that it's an attempt at obfuscation.
The Tea Party has apparently adopted the widely discredited postmodernist concept of science just being another social construct.
It's preposterous of course. Especially when their own alternative theories have exactly the flaws that they are accusing the mainstream science theories of having.
That's just not right. Arbitrage is a very useful function. In particular arbitrage equilibrium to exist for general economic equilibrium to exist. This implies existence of price stability.
HFT is just the inevitable end game when there are companies competing to arbitrage prices across markets. The more competitive it is the less profitable will be.
HFT is squeezing the nuts of arbs across the world. Because the price differences are always decreasing the ability to extract money from the trading system by arbs is decreasing all the time. The result is smaller buy/sell
This particular article is clear illustration of this. If power to run the HFT servers is a determining factor in the profitability of HFT, surely the margins are razor thin.
The good news is that public library patronage has been increasing in the US over the past decade (32% from 2001-2010). Libraries have adapted to the internet and now are gateways and enablers to the new information sources it represents.
My wife is a Librarian and it's interesting how her job has changed. A large part of it is now acting as a teacher of people who are inexperienced with technology how to use the internet and other technology resources the library has to offer. These people are either older folks who don't use technology much in their daily life, or young people who are aware of social media but not so much the learning and knowledge sources on the internet.
There are no absolute rights. The concept is moronic. The fact is that the enumerated rights conflict in many ways, and much of jurisprudence is based on resolving these conflicts. And a lot of the resolution lies in common law that predates the Constitution.
> I could come up with a lot of dreamscape systems
What Rance Priebus is advocating is not a 'dreamscape system'. It is a workable plan that has actually been partly implemented and endorsed by the RNC. If it been fully applied at the last election Mitt Romney would likely be our President.
The current system contains a bias that favors small states by giving electoral college votes to Senators as well as Representatives. THIS is where the intent to protect small states comes in. The other intent was to provide a buffer than prevents the election of a corrupt or tyrannical president. See the Federalist papers by Hamilton on the topic.
It has nothing to do with protecting minorities in general, and in fact the history has been the opposite since most states are winner-take-all minority votes are NOT passed forward, and minorities tend to live in large cities in the larger states that are disadvantaged by the electoral mechanism.
Even worse is the history where districting was conducted was conducted in a way to result in different numbers of voters in a district.
A problem now is the disparity in the senate has reached ridiculous proportions. A California senator represents 19 million people. A senator from Alaska or Wyoming represents 300,000 people. That's a factor of 60 difference. When the founders wrote the Constitution the ratio between the most populous and least populous states was only 11 fold.
So I say:
It isn't working well. It does not protect the votes of minorities. It has resulted in the election of people who did not win a plurality of the votes. It has led to the election of a person because he won one state by a very small majority via the winner-takes-all mechanism. And it is subject to corrupt manipulation, something I am sure the founders did not intend.
I would bet if you took some reasonably intelligent Americans and explained the issues you would find that the majority would not be in favor of continuing this institution.
I wish they would get rid of the stupid email confirmation process, or at least make it asynchronous. Otherwise the enrollment process on healthcare.gov is very quick now. They really have made a lot of progress fixing it.
The reasons I want to eliminate the electoral college are:
1. Past history of Presidents elected despite not having a plurality of votes. 2. Proposal by Rance Priebus describing a method to corrupt the election process by tying electoral college votes to gerrymandered congressional districts.
There are huge problems with the current gerrymandering system. For example, we have a Republican majority in Congress despite the fact that 55% of the votes for Congressmen in the last election were for Democrats. In large part the current shutdown and threats on not raising the debt limit devolve to one thing - the current system of gerrymandering.
It makes a complete mockery of the idea of one man, one vote.
There is a huge problem with the existing districts that results in entrenched, invulnerable elected officials.
I'd be in favor of a system that prevented the formation of districts that resulted in minimization of noncompetitive elections.
Perhaps the election theorists could come up with such a system.
Another problem is the makeup of the Senate - the lack of population sensitivity causes gross underrepresentation of much of the US population. Population concentration in a few states is now much more pronounced than at the time of the Great Compromise. It's a serious issue. I don't have a suggestion on how to fix it though.
Slashdot Mirror
The TP got some creds in my book because during the recent govstop/debt scaremongering lots of corp interests were hammering on them to cut out the obstructionism.
It's a small sign that there are some interests in the TP that aren't totally in corp pockets. Which would be different from the rest of US pol-world.
Of course that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that their ideas are any good. Most of what you hear out their elected officials is pure demagoguery.
You would be surprised how many people have access to proprietary or classified information.
The numbers are so high, and there is so much of it I've reached the conclusion that the only rational explanation is that it's an attempt at obfuscation.
Or maybe the firmware was so buggy the NSA got tired of having to patch it for every update release.
The Tea Party has apparently adopted the widely discredited postmodernist concept of science just being another social construct.
It's preposterous of course. Especially when their own alternative theories have exactly the flaws that they are accusing the mainstream science theories of having.
There are all sorts of cooperation treaties between EU and the US. All will happen is more stuff will move into organizations like NATO.
By far the worst market crash was due to program trading, and occurred Oct 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
The long term effect of it was small if not zero. There was however a lot of soiled underwear on Wall Street that day.
One of the reasons often cited was insufficient market liquidity.
That's just not right. Arbitrage is a very useful function. In particular arbitrage equilibrium to exist for general economic equilibrium to exist. This implies existence of price stability.
HFT is just the inevitable end game when there are companies competing to arbitrage prices across markets. The more competitive it is the less profitable will be.
HFT is squeezing the nuts of arbs across the world. Because the price differences are always decreasing the ability to extract money from the trading system by arbs is decreasing all the time. The result is smaller buy/sell
This particular article is clear illustration of this. If power to run the HFT servers is a determining factor in the profitability of HFT, surely the margins are razor thin.
Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/how-the-robots-lost-high-frequency-tradings-rise-and-fall
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kulesza/pubs/hft_jot10.pdf
Seriously? Listen to an anon over a low id user?
Most of the machine learning stuff I've seen is C/C++.
And this stuff doesn't scale all that well to really large datasets.
Plus this guy is an academic.
Since when did copying an existing work become innovation?
Seriously, if you want to use the term innovation it should be in reference to something new.
Sounds like you are working on some sort of similarity search problem.
You probably find most of your peers are working with C/C++.
If that's the case I'd go for that language.
Wooden posts stuck into the ground don't use programming languages.
The good news is that public library patronage has been increasing in the US over the past decade (32% from 2001-2010). Libraries have adapted to the internet and now are gateways and enablers to the new information sources it represents.
My wife is a Librarian and it's interesting how her job has changed. A large part of it is now acting as a teacher of people who are inexperienced with technology how to use the internet and other technology resources the library has to offer. These people are either older folks who don't use technology much in their daily life, or young people who are aware of social media but not so much the learning and knowledge sources on the internet.
There are no absolute rights. The concept is moronic. The fact is that the enumerated rights conflict in many ways, and much of jurisprudence is based on resolving these conflicts. And a lot of the resolution lies in common law that predates the Constitution.
> I could come up with a lot of dreamscape systems
What Rance Priebus is advocating is not a 'dreamscape system'. It is a workable plan that has actually been partly implemented and endorsed by the RNC. If it been fully applied at the last election Mitt Romney would likely be our President.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/rncs-priebus-endorses-plan-to-rig-electoral-college/
> It is also promoted by those who want the Federal Government in charge of everything instead of it's original limited role.
Nonsense. Lots of conservative organizations back this idea.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/blogs.php
The current system contains a bias that favors small states by giving electoral college votes to Senators as well as Representatives. THIS is where the intent to protect small states comes in. The other intent was to provide a buffer than prevents the election of a corrupt or tyrannical president. See the Federalist papers by Hamilton on the topic.
It has nothing to do with protecting minorities in general, and in fact the history has been the opposite since most states are winner-take-all minority votes are NOT passed forward, and minorities tend to live in large cities in the larger states that are disadvantaged by the electoral mechanism.
Even worse is the history where districting was conducted was conducted in a way to result in different numbers of voters in a district.
A problem now is the disparity in the senate has reached ridiculous proportions. A California senator represents 19 million people. A senator from Alaska or Wyoming represents 300,000 people. That's a factor of 60 difference. When the founders wrote the Constitution the ratio between the most populous and least populous states was only 11 fold.
So I say:
It isn't working well. It does not protect the votes of minorities. It has resulted in the election of people who did not win a plurality of the votes. It has led to the election of a person because he won one state by a very small majority via the winner-takes-all mechanism. And it is subject to corrupt manipulation, something I am sure the founders did not intend.
I would bet if you took some reasonably intelligent Americans and explained the issues you would find that the majority would not be in favor of continuing this institution.
Because it's been overtaken by the current circus in Congress.
The economy generally pushes everything else out of the news.
Opps link didn't make it.
Here it is:
http://ced.berkeley.edu/bpj/2012/09/gerrymandering-politics-out-of-the-redistricting-process-toward-a-planning-revolution-in-redrawing-local-legislative-boundaries/
1. Census, after all that's when reapportionment is done now.
2. Lines to be drawn using an algorithm. See this for a review of some of the proposals.
I wish they would get rid of the stupid email confirmation process, or at least make it asynchronous. Otherwise the enrollment process on healthcare.gov is very quick now. They really have made a lot of progress fixing it.
Specify an algorithm and you can take the pols out of the process.
The reasons I want to eliminate the electoral college are:
1. Past history of Presidents elected despite not having a plurality of votes.
2. Proposal by Rance Priebus describing a method to corrupt the election process by tying electoral college votes to gerrymandered congressional districts.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172191/rncs-priebus-proposes-rig-electoral-college-so-losing-republicans-can-win#
There are huge problems with the current gerrymandering system. For example, we have a Republican majority in Congress despite the fact that 55% of the votes for Congressmen in the last election were for Democrats. In large part the current shutdown and threats on not raising the debt limit devolve to one thing - the current system of gerrymandering.
It makes a complete mockery of the idea of one man, one vote.
There is a huge problem with the existing districts that results in entrenched, invulnerable elected officials.
I'd be in favor of a system that prevented the formation of districts that resulted in minimization of noncompetitive elections.
Perhaps the election theorists could come up with such a system.
Another problem is the makeup of the Senate - the lack of population sensitivity causes gross underrepresentation of much of the US population. Population concentration in a few states is now much more pronounced than at the time of the Great Compromise. It's a serious issue. I don't have a suggestion on how to fix it though.
Alaska is represented by an at-large representative now.
50K max would mean a Congress with 6000 representatives. There is no way this would be workable.