i don't look forward to government managed healthcare because it will be utopia, i look forward to it because it is clearly better than the nightmare system we currently have
There is nothing wrong with the system we have, except where the government has regulated it. Pay as you go for medical services worked great for over a hundred years of our history. Of course, if you think that healthcare is a in born right that the government must now provide for, I guess you have to go your direction. The problem here is that unless we all want to get care like the VA provides (with waiting lists and rationed care that comes with it) this won't "fix" anything really. Yea you may shift the suffering from the poor to the sick, but you will loose a LOT of efficiency in the process.
I expect we will disagree here.. But think down the road some...
If you adopt this "universal" coverage idea and don't provide some kind of cost help for the poor it is going to simply give the poor one more bill they cannot hope to pay. So.. We adjust that by providing some means tested way to help out those who cannot afford to pay and the government picks up the tab. So the question becomes how do you decide some income level that gets the poor the help they need and above that level we have to now collect more in premiums (taxes/ Fines etc) to cover the costs for all the free stuff we hand out.
Run the clock forward a few years and as we realize that paying $1,200/month for a family is really hard, even for folks making thousands above the poverty line so we keep upping the income level that gets you some help. Up goes premiums (taxes fines etc) on the rest and the cycle goes on. Eventually you have a single payer of insurance premiums and if somebody didn't think of it before they will simply do away with insurance companies and volia, we are all on something that looks and consumes resources like medicare.
So, unless you are advocating "universal coverage" with no money coming from the government to help pay for the poor, you really are advocating that we have government take over healthcare, if not now, eventually.
Been to the driver license office lately? That will be your doctors office if we go down this path.
Oh I get the need for insurance, I just think that we need to make insurance for catastrophic situations and not paying for the day to day medical maintenance issues.
And no, we DON"T need universal coverage. There are folks who simply do not need insurance because they have enough money to pay cash for any amount of medical care they may require. Also, "compulsory universal coverage" implies that even the folks who cannot afford it either buy it or pay a fine, making them even more poor than when they started. Yea, you can means test and provide subsidized coverage, but eventually you are going to have to then charge folks more than their insurance is worth to make up for the cost...
Unless you are one of those who think the government has unlimited money to spend....
Sure, but if the patient is motivated enough to actually *ask* about the test and why it is necessary, AND makes an informed decision about having the test done or not, the question about malpractice goes away for the doctor because the patient was the one that decided not to have the test. I'm just suggesting that if a patient had some financial skin in the game it would help limit getting an unnecessary expensive testing like cat scans to prove you don't have aggressive lung cancer, just a touch of bronchitis, where $8 worth of antibiotics is what you need for that cough and pain in your chest and back...
I've always thought that the biggest problem WAS insurance. There is no other area where the consumer generally has *no idea* what the cost is of what they consume. They just care about their copay or out of pocket and don't usually know (or care) what the real costs for the services they consume are. It follows that when someone else is paying for it, people tend to consume more than they really need, which drives up costs for everybody.
Running a close second is malpractice liability and the host of "cover my butt" testing now done by doctors. With the patient not really knowing what all this stuff costs and the doctor facing increasing malpractice insurance costs the pressure to do tests "just in case" is huge, even if the test is unlikely to ever catch anything and is expensive. You know that a good percentage of medical testing falls into this category, and this simply drives up medical costs and insurance premiums.
I suggest that we attack this problem on two fronts (once we get the current "Affordable Health Care Act" off the books.)
First, I think the expansion of HealthCare Security Accounts (HSA) is in order. Make it possible for folks to buy catastrophic health care plans (with very high deductibles) but allow them to put pre-tax money into HSAs up to the max out of pocket per year. Structure them like 401Ks and encourage folks to save though out their lives for medical expenses and allow these accounts to be passed down to others upon death. This will put the patient back into a position to care about costs and make it easier for them to refuse unnecessary testing.
Second, we need to put caps on medical malpractice awards for pain and suffering and make the looser pay legal fees in medical malpractice cases. Awards need to be for actual damages (i.e. for past/future medical expenses, lost earning potential etc) but pain and suffering and punitive awards need to be capped. The "looser pays winner's legal fees" will effectively eliminate those who are gaming the system by filing frivolous suits and their lawyers who are looking for a lucky million dollar award from a jury. All this would serve to lower malpractice insurance costs and lower the pressure on Doctors to perform unnecessary testing that drive up costs.
All in all, we need to get back to a system where the patient can take responsibility for the cost of their care. Only then can we hope to contain the ever expanding costs.
Locks are simply to deter unauthorized/undetected entry. Even a bank vault is designed simply to deter unauthorized entry and make it obvious when the vault was opened when it shouldn't have been. Locks provide varying degrees of protection by being hard to open, but a "good" device will be hard to open without the key or combination and will show obvious signs when it is brute forced open.
The issue with these locks is that they permit unauthorized entry that is not easily detected. One just hooks up some device to the exposed port and one can gain entry in a way that is undetectable. But it is easy to make it difficult to hide when it is forced.
For existing locks, The cover is a good idea, using less common hardware (secure torx or other style) helps too. However, I think that adding a secure sticker, designed to show when the electronic port is accessed should be sufficient for most of us. The cover makes accessing the port more difficult and the sticker makes it obvious when the port is used. Both of these would cost very little to do and should meet reasonable expectations for hotel room door locks.
This doesn't mean the manufacturer shouldn't make some efforts to secure that port in future locks sold. I would suspect that it would be fairly easy to change the firmware in the lock and the supplied support equipment that it delivers in the future and add some additional security to the system. Any number of techniques would work great and make this current exploit go away. However, they should always keep in mind that if it is possible to open the lock from the port, it is hackable, and they should attempt to provide detection of hacking attempts.. This means that they should keep the cover in place and make it evident when it is tampered with.
Verizon did it when they were trying to roll out FiOS, but now Verizon has stopped moving into new areas. AT&T has also stopped expanding Uverse into new areas. Instead, they're focusing on wireless where they can charge much more for less data.
This is not surprising, given the current economics in this country. When you think of cutting costs when you are on unemployment, I'm sure a lot of folks dump the cable bill in order to buy food. I'm sure this thinking has impacted their subscriber base and they simply don't see the case for expanding their business. Wireless companies are not saddled with the huge infrastructure costs of laying out fiber or coax over large areas. Just pop up a tower and you are in business. Their major cost is spectrum space but once you have that, it's a low incremental cost to add new towers.
It is not totally true that nobody will build out in areas where existing service exists. Verizon put FIOS into areas where existing cable infrastructure existed.. Of course they charge about 30% more for the same basic services in my area, but they apparently have to pay off the money they borrowed for putting in all that fiber, but they did increase the competition in some ways. The cable company now offers much higher data rates on their internet services and had to build out more capacity to provide that.
Satellite providers can provide cost competition for your local cable provider for TV services. Not so much for broadband internet service, but the wireless companies can provide some pretty cost effective solutions for that.
My point is that there is plenty of competition for cable companies and even though there is a huge cost to start up a competitive service, it can be done. (Or at least it was possible at one point.)
Yea, a Cu band 11 meter dish is not that big. I think you can buy them for a few million each (installed). I suppose it would be easier to just steal some time on one though. Oh Yea a Ku band up-link would be just about 10' and there are scores of those on trucks running around.
Seriously, these things are both protected by encrypted control links and *monitored* 24x7 so you are unlikely to actually get anywhere with trying to break into one. I'll bet that there are alternate back doors built into these things too, just in case the main radio control structure fails... Good luck!
I'll be that somebody will finally work out the license issues (i.e. pay the huge fees) and do what Hulu sorta started, a pay per stream to your device for any cable channel you desire for a fee over the internet. Why cable companies even bother putting analog signals onto coax these days? Just stream over a network connection to a bunch of cheap set top boxes, or (gasp) to streaming devices the homeowner may already have. Can we say cheap on premises equipment costs?
But oh no, the existing cable companies need to protect their own turf while they pay off the money they borrowed to build out all this antique analog infrastructure they have. They pay huge fees to the content providers to get exclusive rights to distribute content and would loose subscribers in droves if this "web cable company" was allowed. And why would they walk away from a $10/month fee from everybody on their systems just to "rent" a tuner worth about $200 retail (including the tiny disk drive for the DVR)?
Either we will see worse shows (skimping on the costs of filming) or more commercials to make up the lose of subscriber revenue.
We are already there. The quality of the programming is really getting bad with literally 300 channels but nothing to watch and when you do find something they stuff in as much advertising as they can. They put banner ads in their interactive TV screens and insist on playing commercials when you try to search their "on demand" offerings. It is getting really sad.
The unfortunate part of "free" markets is that HST is not something you can stop. Personally, I think that if you have a "no mulligans" policy, such traders are sufficiently constrained. So no rolling back trades unless somebody is breaking laws or the circuit breaker rules of the exchange are hit before they can halt the trades.
The quick money in the stock market is obviously the domain of big money and not the retail investor with 10,000 in his 401k. But understanding that, it doesn't mean there are not suitable investments for the retail guy or no reason to trade stocks. You just have to think differently and realize that you cannot trade on fractions of a point and make money.
Because traders would then just trade directly with each other or set up their own exchanges. If Emron was bad, think what would happen if the huge brokers simply decided to just trade directly with each other, or worse they set up "third party" exchanges to trade securities? The exchanges would then loose the fees they charge.
You can trade stocks and bonds on the street corner, at the farmer's market, in you living room. We just don't do it because it is hard and expensive to trade stock certificates in small numbers. Limiting trades to one per day would just encourage transactions to take place off the exchanges.
Today, after the stock dropped 50%, analysts are beginning to downgrade the stock from buy to hold.
Actually, that just might be a GREAT time to buy. Really bad news causes huge drop in stock price in a medium sized company (Bad earnings, lawsuit filed etc..) wait for the panic selling from retail investors and day traders selling short, then scoop up some shares on the cheap. Put in a limit order for 10% above your cost basis and wait. Usually the news is not as bad as the headline and about half the time you can make 10% in a few days and almost always you can get your original money out in a week. In a day or two the day traders will need to cover their shorts and the price will usually bounce. Just stay away from bankruptcy announcements and look for stocks close to their book values if you can.
Of course, if you have faster access to the information you can sell short and ride the really big money with the day traders, or by trading options... But that entails a lot more risk and takes a lot more money..
But I've yet to see someone discuss how the added-value of millisecond liquidity is substantially superior to having exchanges post transactions in 1-sec. intervals to discourage millisecond arbitrage during which no new events have occured and no new market analysis has taken place
I don't think it matters what interval they stack and execute trades. If the exchange decides to slow the pace of trading, they run the risk of being usurped by some other company who decides to build their own, faster exchange. There is nothing really to stop the big traders from setting up a back channel trading route with each other. What might work to discourage the automated trading is to randomize the trading cycles so nobody knows when the stacked orders in the queue get processed.
No, but it can get you a civil judgment to pay and jail time. I don't know about you, but I really don't have money to give away for being stupid, nor do I have time to spend in jail. You do what you want, just post the link so I can watch the streams until they shut you down..
What part of restricting "rebroadcast or retransmit" by the copyright holder do you not understand? They broadcast warnings about this all the time. Legally, making over the air TV signals available to the public on your website is something the copyright holder can ask you to not do, even if you don't make money on it. If you now start making money on advertising you can bet the folks that own the content will want you to license their content (i.e. get paid).
NKor, sorry, but I can't take that tinpot dictator serious. He has nukes? Bloody unlikely. But even if, short of hurling them around by hand I fail to see a distribution system.
Thought they had a possible successful Nuclear test back in 2009. It was a small underground test.
Really? Who do you think was shooting at western troops in Iraq? Iran may not have uniformed troops in country pulling triggers, but they sure where supplying the means and knowledge (if not the people at times) doing it. The same is true in Afghanistan now.
Perhaps it is just rhetoric, but Iran and other nations in the area has publicly *said* what they intend to do. Some these countries have previously tried to wipe Israel off the map before and failed. Why do you now think that MAD is going to stop Iran from using a nuclear device once it has one?
I suggest that it is stupid to ignore what they are saying they are going to do if we believe them capable of actually doing what they claim. If that means we take military action based on threats they didn't intend to follow though on, then the fools are the ones who made the empty threats.
Encrypting or signing would be a solution but CA and Key maintenance *is* really the problem here no matter how you slice this. Sure, you assign keys to the aircraft by tail number, but you also have to maintain a secure way to assure that this key only gets used on this aircraft and cannot be disclosed otherwise. Aircraft maintenance takes place world wide so the keys must be available to load into radios world wide, which opens up a channel for keys to leak out to unauthorized users. Once you have unauthorized keys floating around, the only solution is to invalidate the CA, regenerate all the keys and update EVERY radio in the world that trusted the CA they now must not trust.
I would assume that the FAA would manage the keys, but until you can be sure that the key and CA list you are flying with is 100% accurate how can you ignore any signal that might keep you out of danger? I don't think you can and I don't think you can be 100% sure of any practical key distribution process. So logically, it doesn't matter that much. Valid signature or not, you listen to the data.
I think that it would be better to just hard code into the device a way to "sign" data so you can trace back to where a signal comes from after the fact. Same thing as your cell phones ESN or perhaps some kind of rolling signature similar to RSA's Secure Tokens, so if you do have issues, you can trace down who did it.
Understand what he said... He is advocating an "all of the above" approach but he is saying that it is MUCH more effective to educate (teach a kid to swim) than block (build a fence). Besides, education lasts a lifetime, where that fence may not be there all the time. Personally it only makes sense to do it all. My son and daughter have both been to the gun range and know how to properly and safely handle various weapons. Guns are stored with trigger locks in a locked cabinet separately from the ammunition. In my view the *education* effort (taking them to the range) buys me more gun safety than all the locks.
First, DON'T keep a loaded gun under your pillow, even without kids. A gun on the bedside table or better in a drawer is much safer and less likely to get accidentally discharged. Besides you might find a mess on your pillow unless you are really good at keeping it clean, using the minimum of lubrication.
Logically, safely storing weapons with young children around is about keeping three separate things from getting together at the same time. What three things? First is the gun itself. A gun must be matched with ammunition (i.e. loaded into the gun). An unsupervised kid is the third. So all your choices boil down to keeping all three of these things from meeting at the same time. You can lock up the gun, the ammunition, or the kids and everything is fine. (Smile)
Don't think you can always watch the kids or keep them under lock and key? Then you had best lock up the gun and/or the ammunition separately. If you insist on having the weapon on the bedside while you sleep, keep it in a locked box unloaded with the ammunition next to it and sleep lightly. In the morning, take the ammunition or the weapon and lock both up separately. Trigger locks are good ideas that are a fairly cheap way to add safety should the kids get into the cabinet, but they are not a practical way of securing a gun on your bedside table at night.
The whole idea here is to put as many road blocks in the way of getting the kids alone with a loaded weapon as you can. Breaking into two safes and defeating a trigger lock takes time, buying you time to realize that it's too quiet and start finding out what the kids are doing.
Once the kids are old enough, the BEST thing you can do is carefully train them in the proper way to safely use and care for weapons. Let them safely fire the weapon as much and as often as their desire and your finances allow. Once the mystery is gone, you will likely find they are not as interested and will be much less likely to want to "play" with the things.
There is a reason this info is not encrypted: People need to know where airplanes are in the sky, especially other planes, including private aircraft.
Actually, I'm not sure how encryption would help. Using a single key doesn't help because it would need to be public. The only way to be totally secure is to have some kind of public/private key set up where every aircraft/radio has an assigned verifiable key to sign things with (at a minimum). The issue becomes key distribution and updating the public keys in some way that is secure. Anything short of total security in the keys and the radios they are loaded into and you are open to this spoofing issue.
Actually, the PILOTS control the aircraft and have the *FINAL* decision about flying the aircraft. Compliance to Air Traffic Control instructions are legally required in some instances but there are exceptions. If the pilot determines that following the instruction would be impossible, unsafe or beyond the capabilities of the aircraft, he can refuse. Of course, the FAA can fine and take your license away once you get on the ground if they don't agree with you.
If a pilot chooses to disobey, he had better do two things. 1. Communicate with ATC about what he is refusing or unable to do, 2. Be ready to defend the decision if the FAA chooses to take issue. But the PIC (pilot in command) really has the final say, which is as it should be because he has the most to loose and has the best information about the current capabilities of his aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
No.. It's called EMP.. Problem is that it's a button the bad guys can push.
>
i don't look forward to government managed healthcare because it will be utopia, i look forward to it because it is clearly better than the nightmare system we currently have
There is nothing wrong with the system we have, except where the government has regulated it. Pay as you go for medical services worked great for over a hundred years of our history. Of course, if you think that healthcare is a in born right that the government must now provide for, I guess you have to go your direction. The problem here is that unless we all want to get care like the VA provides (with waiting lists and rationed care that comes with it) this won't "fix" anything really. Yea you may shift the suffering from the poor to the sick, but you will loose a LOT of efficiency in the process.
I expect we will disagree here.. But think down the road some...
If you adopt this "universal" coverage idea and don't provide some kind of cost help for the poor it is going to simply give the poor one more bill they cannot hope to pay. So.. We adjust that by providing some means tested way to help out those who cannot afford to pay and the government picks up the tab. So the question becomes how do you decide some income level that gets the poor the help they need and above that level we have to now collect more in premiums (taxes/ Fines etc) to cover the costs for all the free stuff we hand out.
Run the clock forward a few years and as we realize that paying $1,200/month for a family is really hard, even for folks making thousands above the poverty line so we keep upping the income level that gets you some help. Up goes premiums (taxes fines etc) on the rest and the cycle goes on. Eventually you have a single payer of insurance premiums and if somebody didn't think of it before they will simply do away with insurance companies and volia, we are all on something that looks and consumes resources like medicare.
So, unless you are advocating "universal coverage" with no money coming from the government to help pay for the poor, you really are advocating that we have government take over healthcare, if not now, eventually.
Been to the driver license office lately? That will be your doctors office if we go down this path.
Oh I get the need for insurance, I just think that we need to make insurance for catastrophic situations and not paying for the day to day medical maintenance issues.
And no, we DON"T need universal coverage. There are folks who simply do not need insurance because they have enough money to pay cash for any amount of medical care they may require. Also, "compulsory universal coverage" implies that even the folks who cannot afford it either buy it or pay a fine, making them even more poor than when they started. Yea, you can means test and provide subsidized coverage, but eventually you are going to have to then charge folks more than their insurance is worth to make up for the cost...
Unless you are one of those who think the government has unlimited money to spend....
Sure, but if the patient is motivated enough to actually *ask* about the test and why it is necessary, AND makes an informed decision about having the test done or not, the question about malpractice goes away for the doctor because the patient was the one that decided not to have the test. I'm just suggesting that if a patient had some financial skin in the game it would help limit getting an unnecessary expensive testing like cat scans to prove you don't have aggressive lung cancer, just a touch of bronchitis, where $8 worth of antibiotics is what you need for that cough and pain in your chest and back...
I've always thought that the biggest problem WAS insurance. There is no other area where the consumer generally has *no idea* what the cost is of what they consume. They just care about their copay or out of pocket and don't usually know (or care) what the real costs for the services they consume are. It follows that when someone else is paying for it, people tend to consume more than they really need, which drives up costs for everybody.
Running a close second is malpractice liability and the host of "cover my butt" testing now done by doctors. With the patient not really knowing what all this stuff costs and the doctor facing increasing malpractice insurance costs the pressure to do tests "just in case" is huge, even if the test is unlikely to ever catch anything and is expensive. You know that a good percentage of medical testing falls into this category, and this simply drives up medical costs and insurance premiums.
I suggest that we attack this problem on two fronts (once we get the current "Affordable Health Care Act" off the books.)
First, I think the expansion of HealthCare Security Accounts (HSA) is in order. Make it possible for folks to buy catastrophic health care plans (with very high deductibles) but allow them to put pre-tax money into HSAs up to the max out of pocket per year. Structure them like 401Ks and encourage folks to save though out their lives for medical expenses and allow these accounts to be passed down to others upon death. This will put the patient back into a position to care about costs and make it easier for them to refuse unnecessary testing.
Second, we need to put caps on medical malpractice awards for pain and suffering and make the looser pay legal fees in medical malpractice cases. Awards need to be for actual damages (i.e. for past/future medical expenses, lost earning potential etc) but pain and suffering and punitive awards need to be capped. The "looser pays winner's legal fees" will effectively eliminate those who are gaming the system by filing frivolous suits and their lawyers who are looking for a lucky million dollar award from a jury. All this would serve to lower malpractice insurance costs and lower the pressure on Doctors to perform unnecessary testing that drive up costs.
All in all, we need to get back to a system where the patient can take responsibility for the cost of their care. Only then can we hope to contain the ever expanding costs.
Locks are simply to deter unauthorized/undetected entry. Even a bank vault is designed simply to deter unauthorized entry and make it obvious when the vault was opened when it shouldn't have been. Locks provide varying degrees of protection by being hard to open, but a "good" device will be hard to open without the key or combination and will show obvious signs when it is brute forced open.
The issue with these locks is that they permit unauthorized entry that is not easily detected. One just hooks up some device to the exposed port and one can gain entry in a way that is undetectable. But it is easy to make it difficult to hide when it is forced.
For existing locks, The cover is a good idea, using less common hardware (secure torx or other style) helps too. However, I think that adding a secure sticker, designed to show when the electronic port is accessed should be sufficient for most of us. The cover makes accessing the port more difficult and the sticker makes it obvious when the port is used. Both of these would cost very little to do and should meet reasonable expectations for hotel room door locks.
This doesn't mean the manufacturer shouldn't make some efforts to secure that port in future locks sold. I would suspect that it would be fairly easy to change the firmware in the lock and the supplied support equipment that it delivers in the future and add some additional security to the system. Any number of techniques would work great and make this current exploit go away. However, they should always keep in mind that if it is possible to open the lock from the port, it is hackable, and they should attempt to provide detection of hacking attempts.. This means that they should keep the cover in place and make it evident when it is tampered with.
Verizon did it when they were trying to roll out FiOS, but now Verizon has stopped moving into new areas. AT&T has also stopped expanding Uverse into new areas. Instead, they're focusing on wireless where they can charge much more for less data.
This is not surprising, given the current economics in this country. When you think of cutting costs when you are on unemployment, I'm sure a lot of folks dump the cable bill in order to buy food. I'm sure this thinking has impacted their subscriber base and they simply don't see the case for expanding their business. Wireless companies are not saddled with the huge infrastructure costs of laying out fiber or coax over large areas. Just pop up a tower and you are in business. Their major cost is spectrum space but once you have that, it's a low incremental cost to add new towers.
It is not totally true that nobody will build out in areas where existing service exists. Verizon put FIOS into areas where existing cable infrastructure existed.. Of course they charge about 30% more for the same basic services in my area, but they apparently have to pay off the money they borrowed for putting in all that fiber, but they did increase the competition in some ways. The cable company now offers much higher data rates on their internet services and had to build out more capacity to provide that.
Satellite providers can provide cost competition for your local cable provider for TV services. Not so much for broadband internet service, but the wireless companies can provide some pretty cost effective solutions for that.
My point is that there is plenty of competition for cable companies and even though there is a huge cost to start up a competitive service, it can be done. (Or at least it was possible at one point.)
Yea, a Cu band 11 meter dish is not that big. I think you can buy them for a few million each (installed). I suppose it would be easier to just steal some time on one though. Oh Yea a Ku band up-link would be just about 10' and there are scores of those on trucks running around.
Seriously, these things are both protected by encrypted control links and *monitored* 24x7 so you are unlikely to actually get anywhere with trying to break into one. I'll bet that there are alternate back doors built into these things too, just in case the main radio control structure fails... Good luck!
In a word.. Nope, at least not a legal one.
I'll be that somebody will finally work out the license issues (i.e. pay the huge fees) and do what Hulu sorta started, a pay per stream to your device for any cable channel you desire for a fee over the internet. Why cable companies even bother putting analog signals onto coax these days? Just stream over a network connection to a bunch of cheap set top boxes, or (gasp) to streaming devices the homeowner may already have. Can we say cheap on premises equipment costs?
But oh no, the existing cable companies need to protect their own turf while they pay off the money they borrowed to build out all this antique analog infrastructure they have. They pay huge fees to the content providers to get exclusive rights to distribute content and would loose subscribers in droves if this "web cable company" was allowed. And why would they walk away from a $10/month fee from everybody on their systems just to "rent" a tuner worth about $200 retail (including the tiny disk drive for the DVR)?
Either we will see worse shows (skimping on the costs of filming) or more commercials to make up the lose of subscriber revenue.
We are already there. The quality of the programming is really getting bad with literally 300 channels but nothing to watch and when you do find something they stuff in as much advertising as they can. They put banner ads in their interactive TV screens and insist on playing commercials when you try to search their "on demand" offerings. It is getting really sad.
The unfortunate part of "free" markets is that HST is not something you can stop. Personally, I think that if you have a "no mulligans" policy, such traders are sufficiently constrained. So no rolling back trades unless somebody is breaking laws or the circuit breaker rules of the exchange are hit before they can halt the trades.
The quick money in the stock market is obviously the domain of big money and not the retail investor with 10,000 in his 401k. But understanding that, it doesn't mean there are not suitable investments for the retail guy or no reason to trade stocks. You just have to think differently and realize that you cannot trade on fractions of a point and make money.
Why not just a single trade resolution per day ?
Because traders would then just trade directly with each other or set up their own exchanges. If Emron was bad, think what would happen if the huge brokers simply decided to just trade directly with each other, or worse they set up "third party" exchanges to trade securities? The exchanges would then loose the fees they charge.
You can trade stocks and bonds on the street corner, at the farmer's market, in you living room. We just don't do it because it is hard and expensive to trade stock certificates in small numbers. Limiting trades to one per day would just encourage transactions to take place off the exchanges.
Today, after the stock dropped 50%, analysts are beginning to downgrade the stock from buy to hold.
Actually, that just might be a GREAT time to buy. Really bad news causes huge drop in stock price in a medium sized company (Bad earnings, lawsuit filed etc..) wait for the panic selling from retail investors and day traders selling short, then scoop up some shares on the cheap. Put in a limit order for 10% above your cost basis and wait. Usually the news is not as bad as the headline and about half the time you can make 10% in a few days and almost always you can get your original money out in a week. In a day or two the day traders will need to cover their shorts and the price will usually bounce. Just stay away from bankruptcy announcements and look for stocks close to their book values if you can.
Of course, if you have faster access to the information you can sell short and ride the really big money with the day traders, or by trading options... But that entails a lot more risk and takes a lot more money..
>
But I've yet to see someone discuss how the added-value of millisecond liquidity is substantially superior to having exchanges post transactions in 1-sec. intervals to discourage millisecond arbitrage during which no new events have occured and no new market analysis has taken place
I don't think it matters what interval they stack and execute trades. If the exchange decides to slow the pace of trading, they run the risk of being usurped by some other company who decides to build their own, faster exchange. There is nothing really to stop the big traders from setting up a back channel trading route with each other. What might work to discourage the automated trading is to randomize the trading cycles so nobody knows when the stacked orders in the queue get processed.
Hmmmm.... I see a business opportunity here.
>
It being illegal doesn't make it wrong.
No, but it can get you a civil judgment to pay and jail time. I don't know about you, but I really don't have money to give away for being stupid, nor do I have time to spend in jail. You do what you want, just post the link so I can watch the streams until they shut you down..
What part of restricting "rebroadcast or retransmit" by the copyright holder do you not understand? They broadcast warnings about this all the time. Legally, making over the air TV signals available to the public on your website is something the copyright holder can ask you to not do, even if you don't make money on it. If you now start making money on advertising you can bet the folks that own the content will want you to license their content (i.e. get paid).
NKor, sorry, but I can't take that tinpot dictator serious. He has nukes? Bloody unlikely. But even if, short of hurling them around by hand I fail to see a distribution system.
Thought they had a possible successful Nuclear test back in 2009. It was a small underground test.
Iran will not be killing any westerners soon.
Really? Who do you think was shooting at western troops in Iraq? Iran may not have uniformed troops in country pulling triggers, but they sure where supplying the means and knowledge (if not the people at times) doing it. The same is true in Afghanistan now.
Perhaps it is just rhetoric, but Iran and other nations in the area has publicly *said* what they intend to do. Some these countries have previously tried to wipe Israel off the map before and failed. Why do you now think that MAD is going to stop Iran from using a nuclear device once it has one?
I suggest that it is stupid to ignore what they are saying they are going to do if we believe them capable of actually doing what they claim. If that means we take military action based on threats they didn't intend to follow though on, then the fools are the ones who made the empty threats.
Encrypting or signing would be a solution but CA and Key maintenance *is* really the problem here no matter how you slice this. Sure, you assign keys to the aircraft by tail number, but you also have to maintain a secure way to assure that this key only gets used on this aircraft and cannot be disclosed otherwise. Aircraft maintenance takes place world wide so the keys must be available to load into radios world wide, which opens up a channel for keys to leak out to unauthorized users. Once you have unauthorized keys floating around, the only solution is to invalidate the CA, regenerate all the keys and update EVERY radio in the world that trusted the CA they now must not trust.
I would assume that the FAA would manage the keys, but until you can be sure that the key and CA list you are flying with is 100% accurate how can you ignore any signal that might keep you out of danger? I don't think you can and I don't think you can be 100% sure of any practical key distribution process. So logically, it doesn't matter that much. Valid signature or not, you listen to the data.
I think that it would be better to just hard code into the device a way to "sign" data so you can trace back to where a signal comes from after the fact. Same thing as your cell phones ESN or perhaps some kind of rolling signature similar to RSA's Secure Tokens, so if you do have issues, you can trace down who did it.
Understand what he said... He is advocating an "all of the above" approach but he is saying that it is MUCH more effective to educate (teach a kid to swim) than block (build a fence). Besides, education lasts a lifetime, where that fence may not be there all the time. Personally it only makes sense to do it all. My son and daughter have both been to the gun range and know how to properly and safely handle various weapons. Guns are stored with trigger locks in a locked cabinet separately from the ammunition. In my view the *education* effort (taking them to the range) buys me more gun safety than all the locks.
First, DON'T keep a loaded gun under your pillow, even without kids. A gun on the bedside table or better in a drawer is much safer and less likely to get accidentally discharged. Besides you might find a mess on your pillow unless you are really good at keeping it clean, using the minimum of lubrication.
Logically, safely storing weapons with young children around is about keeping three separate things from getting together at the same time. What three things? First is the gun itself. A gun must be matched with ammunition (i.e. loaded into the gun). An unsupervised kid is the third. So all your choices boil down to keeping all three of these things from meeting at the same time. You can lock up the gun, the ammunition, or the kids and everything is fine. (Smile)
Don't think you can always watch the kids or keep them under lock and key? Then you had best lock up the gun and/or the ammunition separately. If you insist on having the weapon on the bedside while you sleep, keep it in a locked box unloaded with the ammunition next to it and sleep lightly. In the morning, take the ammunition or the weapon and lock both up separately. Trigger locks are good ideas that are a fairly cheap way to add safety should the kids get into the cabinet, but they are not a practical way of securing a gun on your bedside table at night.
The whole idea here is to put as many road blocks in the way of getting the kids alone with a loaded weapon as you can. Breaking into two safes and defeating a trigger lock takes time, buying you time to realize that it's too quiet and start finding out what the kids are doing.
Once the kids are old enough, the BEST thing you can do is carefully train them in the proper way to safely use and care for weapons. Let them safely fire the weapon as much and as often as their desire and your finances allow. Once the mystery is gone, you will likely find they are not as interested and will be much less likely to want to "play" with the things.
There is a reason this info is not encrypted: People need to know where airplanes are in the sky, especially other planes, including private aircraft.
Actually, I'm not sure how encryption would help. Using a single key doesn't help because it would need to be public. The only way to be totally secure is to have some kind of public/private key set up where every aircraft/radio has an assigned verifiable key to sign things with (at a minimum). The issue becomes key distribution and updating the public keys in some way that is secure. Anything short of total security in the keys and the radios they are loaded into and you are open to this spoofing issue.
Actually, the PILOTS control the aircraft and have the *FINAL* decision about flying the aircraft. Compliance to Air Traffic Control instructions are legally required in some instances but there are exceptions. If the pilot determines that following the instruction would be impossible, unsafe or beyond the capabilities of the aircraft, he can refuse. Of course, the FAA can fine and take your license away once you get on the ground if they don't agree with you.
If a pilot chooses to disobey, he had better do two things. 1. Communicate with ATC about what he is refusing or unable to do, 2. Be ready to defend the decision if the FAA chooses to take issue. But the PIC (pilot in command) really has the final say, which is as it should be because he has the most to loose and has the best information about the current capabilities of his aircraft.