In the US, there is a presumption of innocence and a 4th amendment. He is under no requirement to speak to police and can simply refuse to talk with them.
You cannot arrest someone for not talking, nor can you force someone to pay bail unless they are charged with a crime, which for murder likely requires an indictment from a Grand Jury, based on substantial evidence.
As usual, your view is shortsighted and misses the point, while still being somewhat consistent in a limited sense.
Yes, the poor are much more likely to commit crimes than the wealthy (or at least to get caught doing it). Minorities are a substantial portion of the poor.
You also fail to notice that drug sentences are 50% - 120% more lengthy for minorities than whites who do exactly the same crime, and conviction rates are much higher.
Now, what is the cause of this dichotomy, I have no idea. I doubt it's actual institutional racism in the courts. Maybe it's based on their behavior in court, or their willigness to submit to treatment, or some other metric such as family stability being taken into account, but we don't have any evidence other than the actual statistics which are a bit damning.
This it not to mention the fact that most drug dealing crimes begin with a search of property based on "reasonable suspicion", often in vehicles, where blacks appear to be as much as 10 TIMES more likely to be subject to a search as whites during a routine traffic stop.
I dunno, I learned Dvorak in college, but I ditched it after about 9 months. Sure, this was partly because it was a pain to switch keyboard layouts every time i wanted to use a different computer, and/or my friends wanted to use mine...
Also, I did get to about 70% of the speed, and I'm sure it's just as fast, but I didn't personally feel any astounding level of simplicity to the movements. Sure, the e is in a more natural place, but I never liked the placement of 's'.
Lets be clear here, the Syrian military IS NOT taking losses. They have lost a few dozen soldiers to almost 50,000 civilian deaths.
No planes have been shot down, no tanks have been lost.
The Syrian military could certainly continue doing what they're doing indefinitely. The only reason they face trouble is extrinsic to the conflict. International pressure, sanctions and the threat of invasion from Turkey or the UN is the only threat against a semi-modern military. The people themselves, are little threat, except politically.
You could wait to accelerate to high speed until you were well out of our system and decelerate well before you enter the target system.
And that is how it would have to work. I don't think there's any means to immediately reach light speed, or even a fraction of it.
to reach 0.1c takes about a month and you're well past the orbit of pluto by then (3-5 times), assuming about 10m/s/s acceleration (slightly higher than 1G). You would be going pretty fast in the inner solar system, but not relativistic speed.
However, in order to do a trip to Alpha Centauri at 1G acceleration, assuming you have a 100% efficient antimatter drive that turns pure matter into pure kinetic energy, your ship still must have a fuel:payload ratio of 20:1 (and the ship itself is included in the payload). Let's just assume the space shuttle is the size we're going for..
Lets also assume 50% efficiency, just to keep things moderately real.
Your ship is 250,000 pounds. Your fuel supply is... 10,000,000 pounds. Half of this needs to be antimatter.
Where to obtain 5,000,000 pounds of antimatter? hmmm.....
Realistically, this can be overcome by simply using a secondary slingshot from another planet such as Mars or Venus. If you were to leave earth orbit at just a fraction of a degree off plane, you could go under the slingshot planet at, say, 30 degrees of latitude. You could still get most of the slingshot power, without giving up the ability to go off-axis to some extent.
I haven't actually done the math, but it seems plausible.
The only time I found the 48fps showing to be uncomfortable and weird was during very fast action, jerky motion sequences. It suddenly feels like high-fidelity jerkyness, which makes it lose its tendency to portray "oh noez, stuff is blurry and out of control, even the camera", and just feels like "why is the dude shaking the camera so much?"
This is all a great point. Thanks for sharing. I came into this slightly supporting gun controls, but am open minded and I'm not entirely sure now... Interesting issue, and one that you have stated very well here. I think humans overreacting to the extraordinary is a huge problem in our society.. too bad, really.
It isn't, lots of study went into that. In full-auto bursts from most soldiers, only the first 2-3 rounds were anywhere CLOSE to the intended target anyway...
He didn't say kidnapped, he said missing. That is probably much more often, little Timmy falling into the river, or teenager Danny committing suicide off a bridge without leaving a note.
You have to reverse the "tough on crime" mentality.
Most Americans seem to view prison as ultimate retribution for evils.
Europeans (at least in the past) viewed it as necessary punishment, combined with rehabilitation in order to better society as a whole, without regard to "vengance" or "revenge" or other such factors.
One of the problems with this is that the military is capable of quelling almost any civilian uprising today, given technology.
I can't think of too many examples of a full-scale civilian assault on a trained military team other than the battle of Mogadishu, where the Marines and Delta teams had a kill ratio something on the order of 200:1. And these were civilians armed with AK-47 and RPGs who had experience shooting them at fleshy targets in an urban environment, not a fat housewife with a 12 gauge from Walmart who hasn't walked further than from her car to the parking lot in 10 years.
I'm on the fence about gun control laws, honestly, but I certainly don't think the weapons serve their purpose today in the way the founders intended...
Yeah, I've heard all the stupid arguments about "soldiers wouldn't shoot civilians". History denies that. Syria, Lybia, Germany, France.. hell, basically every country on the map has had a time in its history where political views drove people to rebellion which saw the military entrenched and killing civilians and civilian militias en masse.
Germany, and other places make a point of stationing security forces away from their home, so they don't run into dilemma of having to shoot their own mother or uncle and it's easy enough in human nature to dehumanize pretty much any other person as "the enemy".
And you might note that as a result, buying a truck full of ammonium nitrate will get you a visit from the men in black... as will bringing box cutters onto a plane.
Do you disagree with all of these security measures as well?
I guess I don't have a problem with a strict libertarian argument, but guns aren't special. Either I can buy trucks of ammonium nitrate, an industrial sized vat of pseudoephedrine and an FAA approved box cutter, along with my AR-15, or I can't.
I don't think having it both ways is a good practice. It leads to the "it's OK as long as I approve of it" angle. That sorta sucks.
If this dude had set fire to the school, how many people would have died?
Just because some nightclub somewhere has no exits (Rhode Island) or a boat has no means of escape when burning (Missouri), each having hundreds of deaths, doesn't make "fire" somehow a more dangerous weapon.
It just means that... sometimes, it's possible to kill an entire building full of people all at once.. but how many cases of arson each year cause no fatalities? Are they included in the average? I doubt it, because these "per incident" statistics are completely worthless.
Air France crashes have a death rate of 300 per incident... but it's been one of the safest airlines in aviation history...
I worked to help a company under DDOS attack mitigate the threat.
Their normal bandwidth usage was on the order of 400Mbps, they has about 1Gbps of capacity. They were peered to several regional NOCs that maintained about 50Gbps of connectivity, I believe. Keep in mind that 50Gbps with multiple peers costs on the order of $400,000 per year, if my math is correct.
Well, regardless, the DDoS attacks from a single individual (who was later identified) were pushing about 60Gbps (!?!) of attack bandwidth. They not only overwhelmed the provider and their small datacenter, but the upstream NOC as well. The other issue is that the DDoS attacks were coming from a huge number of endpoints, sometimes 100,000 or more, so it was not practical to simply blacklist all of their networks, especially since many were on cable modems, or other servers in major companies that had been infected with some botnet, or otherwise.
On the whole, a major financial institution CAN mitigate these attacks. You should note that the Bank of America website is still up.
However, I estimate it costs them in excess of $100,000 per month to do so.
I'm not sure the details... however, these articles indicate they are seeking sub millisecond response times, and Morgan Stanley is recently citing a study that the percentage of trades in the market that are done by high frequency trading has skyrocketed to 84% of all activity this year (2012). Some people estimate they are "only" 50% of all market trades. Now keep in mind, this is approximately 95 million individuals and companies who are investing vs somewhere between 10 and 20 HFT systems. So they execute at a rate about 5-10 million times what a normal trader would... Meh rate limiting...
2. Send ing then cancelling repeatedly is illegal, and is monitored for by the exchange
From the Wall Street Journal February 23, 2012. Of those 83% from HFT, 90% (or a full 75% of all market activity) are orders that are subsequently cancelled.
(From The Wall Street Journal)
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said a large portion of equities trading has little to do with "the fundamentals of the company that's being traded." She said it had more to do with "the minuscule aberrational price move" that computer-assisted traders with direct connections to the exchange can "jump on" in fractions of a second. Such activity "worries me," Ms. Schapiro said in a breakfast meeting Wednesday with reporters. One solution would be forcing high-frequency traders to pay for the canceled trades that make up nine-tenths of all orders, she said.
-- Wall Street Journal
(From MoneyMorning.com)
HFT players are constantly pinging stocks where their quotes are housed and displayed. They send out their orders to manipulate others to adjust their quotes, which get fed into the HFT algorithms to determine any directionality; then, if an opportunity exists the HFT computers buy or sell shares that someone else has put onto the market.
They aren't quoting constantly as bona fide "market-makers" are supposed to do, which they claim they are acting like. They are simply putting out millions of fake bids and offers which they pull almost immediately, just to read the movement of other market participants who react to the HFT come-ons.
3. ECNs (basically exchanges) charge for TRADEs NOT for orders, quotes or other messages. Infrastructure for high messaging rates costs them, so they have an incentive to keep rates DOWN. In fact, they have a minimum message per trade ratio, to control this.
I don't know the details. Regardless, they profile very well from HFT and don't want it gone. If HFT goes away, so does some insignificant fraction of their income. Hard to argue with, they've said it themselves.
4. There is no way to be a mitn. Each participant sends orders and cancels to the exchange. The exchange matches orders and creates trades, in what's called a matching engine. Participants have no way to access this, and no way to "get in the middle" of other participants orders.
Let me quote again from several descriptions of HFT that professional analysts have written.
(From MoneyMorning.com)
They send out their orders to manipulate others to adjust their quotes, which get fed into the HFT algorithms to determine any directionality; then, if an opportunity exists the HFT computers buy or sell shares that someone else has put onto the market. They aren't quoting constantly as bona fide "market-makers" are supposed to do, which they claim they are acting like. They are simply putting out millions of fake bids and offers which they pull almost immediately, just to read the movement of other market participants who react to the HFT come-ons.
By the way, I spoke to a trader who writes these algorithms.
She (yeah, she) told me that she thought it was evil, but she is paid too well to say anything. She seriously makes a half million USD per year AND has a private account in the trading system that returns 3% PER DAY.
High Frequency trading is essentially the action of manipulating the system, constantly creating and destroying orders faster than others involved in the market.
By this, you can essentially become a man-in-the-middle for market transactions and skim a small amount off of each.
Additionally, many of the algorithms simply forge orders and then subsequently cancel them faster than the system can process them. What this does is basically slow down the system for everyone else, and create a lag that they can further take advantage of to skim off the top.
The major trading indicies are OK with this, because they are paid on a per-transaction basis, and happily collect their fraction of a cent from each of these high-speed traders.
In some low volume, they do represent increased liquidity in the market and they do bring buy-sell spreads down. This is why it was first allowed in the 1990s by the market makers.
Today, they represent something like 60%-80% of all market traffic and simply skim dollars off of trades. They invest big money in artificially delaying other people's transactions to manipulate the spread between a buy and sell order and to take advantage of market swings, because they can issue multiple buy-sell-buy-sell sequences before a single long-term buyer is capable of getting a single order in.
It is nothing more than a high-tech fraud... it appears to be legal right now, because nobody has decided to stop it and has many powerful billionaires behind it, but in the end, it's not much different than the scheme in Superman 2 or Office Space. Skim a quarter penny off every transaction and I guess nobody notices....
Slashdot Mirror
I use these:
http://1000bulbs.com/product/58963/LED-409946.html?utm_source=SmartFeedGoogleBase&utm_medium=Shopping&utm_term=LED-409946&utm_content=LED+Light+Bulbs+-+60+Watt+Equal&utm_campaign=SmartFeedGoogleBaseShopping&gclid=CND43cb5wbQCFelDMgodCyIABA
About 1/5 the power of an incandescent and about 1/2 the power of a CFL for the same light. Also, supposed to last 15 years.
Neat.
In the US, there is a presumption of innocence and a 4th amendment. He is under no requirement to speak to police and can simply refuse to talk with them.
You cannot arrest someone for not talking, nor can you force someone to pay bail unless they are charged with a crime, which for murder likely requires an indictment from a Grand Jury, based on substantial evidence.
Just saying...
As usual, your view is shortsighted and misses the point, while still being somewhat consistent in a limited sense.
Yes, the poor are much more likely to commit crimes than the wealthy (or at least to get caught doing it). Minorities are a substantial portion of the poor.
You also fail to notice that drug sentences are 50% - 120% more lengthy for minorities than whites who do exactly the same crime, and conviction rates are much higher.
Now, what is the cause of this dichotomy, I have no idea. I doubt it's actual institutional racism in the courts. Maybe it's based on their behavior in court, or their willigness to submit to treatment, or some other metric such as family stability being taken into account, but we don't have any evidence other than the actual statistics which are a bit damning.
This it not to mention the fact that most drug dealing crimes begin with a search of property based on "reasonable suspicion", often in vehicles, where blacks appear to be as much as 10 TIMES more likely to be subject to a search as whites during a routine traffic stop.
Worth pointing out...
I dunno, I learned Dvorak in college, but I ditched it after about 9 months. Sure, this was partly because it was a pain to switch keyboard layouts every time i wanted to use a different computer, and/or my friends wanted to use mine...
Also, I did get to about 70% of the speed, and I'm sure it's just as fast, but I didn't personally feel any astounding level of simplicity to the movements. Sure, the e is in a more natural place, but I never liked the placement of 's'.
Meh...
Lets be clear here, the Syrian military IS NOT taking losses. They have lost a few dozen soldiers to almost 50,000 civilian deaths.
No planes have been shot down, no tanks have been lost.
The Syrian military could certainly continue doing what they're doing indefinitely. The only reason they face trouble is extrinsic to the conflict. International pressure, sanctions and the threat of invasion from Turkey or the UN is the only threat against a semi-modern military. The people themselves, are little threat, except politically.
How's that for a clue?
You could wait to accelerate to high speed until you were well out of our system and decelerate well before you enter the target system.
And that is how it would have to work. I don't think there's any means to immediately reach light speed, or even a fraction of it.
to reach 0.1c takes about a month and you're well past the orbit of pluto by then (3-5 times), assuming about 10m/s/s acceleration (slightly higher than 1G). You would be going pretty fast in the inner solar system, but not relativistic speed.
However, in order to do a trip to Alpha Centauri at 1G acceleration, assuming you have a 100% efficient antimatter drive that turns pure matter into pure kinetic energy, your ship still must have a fuel:payload ratio of 20:1 (and the ship itself is included in the payload). Let's just assume the space shuttle is the size we're going for..
Lets also assume 50% efficiency, just to keep things moderately real.
Your ship is 250,000 pounds. Your fuel supply is... 10,000,000 pounds. Half of this needs to be antimatter.
Where to obtain 5,000,000 pounds of antimatter? hmmm.....
Realistically, this can be overcome by simply using a secondary slingshot from another planet such as Mars or Venus. If you were to leave earth orbit at just a fraction of a degree off plane, you could go under the slingshot planet at, say, 30 degrees of latitude. You could still get most of the slingshot power, without giving up the ability to go off-axis to some extent.
I haven't actually done the math, but it seems plausible.
That's exactly the problem I had.
The "Jerkycam" works BECAUSE of the 24fps.
The only time I found the 48fps showing to be uncomfortable and weird was during very fast action, jerky motion sequences. It suddenly feels like high-fidelity jerkyness, which makes it lose its tendency to portray "oh noez, stuff is blurry and out of control, even the camera", and just feels like "why is the dude shaking the camera so much?"
According to what I read, he was shooting them point-blank with a high power rifle and likely using hollow point rounds.
Almost nobody survives this. Those who did were likely not shot directly themselves...
Just food for thought.
This is all a great point. Thanks for sharing. I came into this slightly supporting gun controls, but am open minded and I'm not entirely sure now... Interesting issue, and one that you have stated very well here. I think humans overreacting to the extraordinary is a huge problem in our society.. too bad, really.
It isn't, lots of study went into that. In full-auto bursts from most soldiers, only the first 2-3 rounds were anywhere CLOSE to the intended target anyway...
He didn't say kidnapped, he said missing. That is probably much more often, little Timmy falling into the river, or teenager Danny committing suicide off a bridge without leaving a note.
You have to reverse the "tough on crime" mentality.
Most Americans seem to view prison as ultimate retribution for evils.
Europeans (at least in the past) viewed it as necessary punishment, combined with rehabilitation in order to better society as a whole, without regard to "vengance" or "revenge" or other such factors.
One of the problems with this is that the military is capable of quelling almost any civilian uprising today, given technology.
I can't think of too many examples of a full-scale civilian assault on a trained military team other than the battle of Mogadishu, where the Marines and Delta teams had a kill ratio something on the order of 200:1. And these were civilians armed with AK-47 and RPGs who had experience shooting them at fleshy targets in an urban environment, not a fat housewife with a 12 gauge from Walmart who hasn't walked further than from her car to the parking lot in 10 years.
I'm on the fence about gun control laws, honestly, but I certainly don't think the weapons serve their purpose today in the way the founders intended...
Yeah, I've heard all the stupid arguments about "soldiers wouldn't shoot civilians". History denies that. Syria, Lybia, Germany, France.. hell, basically every country on the map has had a time in its history where political views drove people to rebellion which saw the military entrenched and killing civilians and civilian militias en masse.
Germany, and other places make a point of stationing security forces away from their home, so they don't run into dilemma of having to shoot their own mother or uncle and it's easy enough in human nature to dehumanize pretty much any other person as "the enemy".
It's a pretty tricky argument to make.
And you might note that as a result, buying a truck full of ammonium nitrate will get you a visit from the men in black... as will bringing box cutters onto a plane.
Do you disagree with all of these security measures as well?
I guess I don't have a problem with a strict libertarian argument, but guns aren't special. Either I can buy trucks of ammonium nitrate, an industrial sized vat of pseudoephedrine and an FAA approved box cutter, along with my AR-15, or I can't.
I don't think having it both ways is a good practice. It leads to the "it's OK as long as I approve of it" angle. That sorta sucks.
As far as I have read, she had an AR-15, which may or may not be an "assault rifle" depending on the configuration and your personal definition.
Per incident?
Seriously?
If this dude had set fire to the school, how many people would have died?
Just because some nightclub somewhere has no exits (Rhode Island) or a boat has no means of escape when burning (Missouri), each having hundreds of deaths, doesn't make "fire" somehow a more dangerous weapon.
It just means that... sometimes, it's possible to kill an entire building full of people all at once.. but how many cases of arson each year cause no fatalities? Are they included in the average? I doubt it, because these "per incident" statistics are completely worthless.
Air France crashes have a death rate of 300 per incident... but it's been one of the safest airlines in aviation history...
meaningless bullshit...
I worked to help a company under DDOS attack mitigate the threat.
Their normal bandwidth usage was on the order of 400Mbps, they has about 1Gbps of capacity. They were peered to several regional NOCs that maintained about 50Gbps of connectivity, I believe. Keep in mind that 50Gbps with multiple peers costs on the order of $400,000 per year, if my math is correct.
Well, regardless, the DDoS attacks from a single individual (who was later identified) were pushing about 60Gbps (!?!) of attack bandwidth. They not only overwhelmed the provider and their small datacenter, but the upstream NOC as well. The other issue is that the DDoS attacks were coming from a huge number of endpoints, sometimes 100,000 or more, so it was not practical to simply blacklist all of their networks, especially since many were on cable modems, or other servers in major companies that had been infected with some botnet, or otherwise.
On the whole, a major financial institution CAN mitigate these attacks. You should note that the Bank of America website is still up.
However, I estimate it costs them in excess of $100,000 per month to do so.
What's out of bounds?
Asking you to interview your future boss....
I sense a HUGE cultural problem in your company...
R might be the wrong letter... lol Maybe she said K? no idea, honestly, it wasn't anything I'd ever heard of...
I clearly didn't do the math on it.
She definitely said 3%. I asked 'per month?" She said "per day".
She explained how they use the "R" programming language, which I'd never heard of...
But clearly, it is right to say her number must be short term or unusual or something...
1. Many exchanges have message rate limits.
I'm not sure the details... however, these articles indicate they are seeking sub millisecond response times, and Morgan Stanley is recently citing a study that the percentage of trades in the market that are done by high frequency trading has skyrocketed to 84% of all activity this year (2012). Some people estimate they are "only" 50% of all market trades. Now keep in mind, this is approximately 95 million individuals and companies who are investing vs somewhere between 10 and 20 HFT systems. So they execute at a rate about 5-10 million times what a normal trader would... Meh rate limiting...
2. Send ing then cancelling repeatedly is illegal, and is monitored for by the exchange
From the Wall Street Journal February 23, 2012. Of those 83% from HFT, 90% (or a full 75% of all market activity) are orders that are subsequently cancelled.
(From The Wall Street Journal)
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said a large portion of equities trading has little to do with "the fundamentals of the company that's being traded." She said it had more to do with "the minuscule aberrational price move" that computer-assisted traders with direct connections to the exchange can "jump on" in fractions of a second. Such activity "worries me," Ms. Schapiro said in a breakfast meeting Wednesday with reporters. One solution would be forcing high-frequency traders to pay for the canceled trades that make up nine-tenths of all orders, she said.
-- Wall Street Journal
(From MoneyMorning.com)
HFT players are constantly pinging stocks where their quotes are housed and displayed. They send out their orders to manipulate others to adjust their quotes, which get fed into the HFT algorithms to determine any directionality; then, if an opportunity exists the HFT computers buy or sell shares that someone else has put onto the market.
They aren't quoting constantly as bona fide "market-makers" are supposed to do, which they claim they are acting like. They are simply putting out millions of fake bids and offers which they pull almost immediately, just to read the movement of other market participants who react to the HFT come-ons.
3. ECNs (basically exchanges) charge for TRADEs NOT for orders, quotes or other messages. Infrastructure for high messaging rates costs them, so they have an incentive to keep rates DOWN. In fact, they have a minimum message per trade ratio, to control this.
I don't know the details. Regardless, they profile very well from HFT and don't want it gone. If HFT goes away, so does some insignificant fraction of their income. Hard to argue with, they've said it themselves.
4. There is no way to be a mitn. Each participant sends orders and cancels to the exchange. The exchange matches orders and creates trades, in what's called a matching engine. Participants have no way to access this, and no way to "get in the middle" of other participants orders.
Let me quote again from several descriptions of HFT that professional analysts have written.
(From MoneyMorning.com)
They send out their orders to manipulate others to adjust their quotes, which get fed into the HFT algorithms to determine any directionality; then, if an opportunity exists the HFT computers buy or sell shares that someone else has put onto the market. They aren't quoting constantly as bona fide "market-makers" are supposed to do, which they claim they are acting like. They are simply putting out millions of fake bids and offers which they pull almost immediately, just to read the movement of other market participants who react to the HFT come-ons.
According to this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/i
By the way, I spoke to a trader who writes these algorithms.
She (yeah, she) told me that she thought it was evil, but she is paid too well to say anything. She seriously makes a half million USD per year AND has a private account in the trading system that returns 3% PER DAY.
Yikes.
High Frequency trading is essentially the action of manipulating the system, constantly creating and destroying orders faster than others involved in the market.
By this, you can essentially become a man-in-the-middle for market transactions and skim a small amount off of each.
Additionally, many of the algorithms simply forge orders and then subsequently cancel them faster than the system can process them. What this does is basically slow down the system for everyone else, and create a lag that they can further take advantage of to skim off the top.
The major trading indicies are OK with this, because they are paid on a per-transaction basis, and happily collect their fraction of a cent from each of these high-speed traders.
In some low volume, they do represent increased liquidity in the market and they do bring buy-sell spreads down. This is why it was first allowed in the 1990s by the market makers.
Today, they represent something like 60%-80% of all market traffic and simply skim dollars off of trades. They invest big money in artificially delaying other people's transactions to manipulate the spread between a buy and sell order and to take advantage of market swings, because they can issue multiple buy-sell-buy-sell sequences before a single long-term buyer is capable of getting a single order in.
It is nothing more than a high-tech fraud... it appears to be legal right now, because nobody has decided to stop it and has many powerful billionaires behind it, but in the end, it's not much different than the scheme in Superman 2 or Office Space. Skim a quarter penny off every transaction and I guess nobody notices....
how much awesomer NNTP threads are relative to web forums or -- gack -- AJAXy Slashdot-type stuff.
FTFY