Both the cash dividends and share repurchase of same value have equivalent effect on the wealth of the shareholders. This assumes that all other factors such as the taxation are the same.
Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. Sometimes they run out of productive things to do with the money they have, so the most responsible thing to do is return it to shareholders. Apple's strategy is to make a lot of money now, not invest for some far future payoff.
I'm agree this tweet could have been flagged automatically. However, I question that a trading algorithm that automatically trades on such tweets could recognize this as a "once in a decade" type event.
Are you implying that unmarried people are more likely to be dbags, or that there is a reason to especially dislike unmarried dbags as oppposed to married dbags? Either way you come accross as very bigoted.
Yes you are right about having kids not being a protected class, although marital status is.
Where is the evidence that this drop was caused by HFT algorithms? Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that computers are yet capable of parsing that tweet and recognizing that its content is extraordinary (as opposed to the usual tweets that come from that account and others). A few minutes is easily enough time for humans to react.
"...we want people who understand that they are making a product for normal people, for their family and friends. So we often hire them because either they have their own kids..."
My understanding of federal anti-discrimination laws, is that this is illegal. Of course these laws were designed to protect women and Blacks, not beta males, so of course nothing will actually happen.
Nothing in the real world is truly self similar because eventually you get to atoms. The IBM water coolers really are fractal. To disagree is not pedantic, it's wrong
I was intentionally simplifying, but I agree with your more detailed exposition. I did understate the extent to which fundamental issues related to the GPU architecture are still relevant. My own experience is in embarrassingly parallelizable problems so my knowledge of these issues is nor very deep.
What you are describing is GPU computing 5 to 10 years ago. Now, (1) you don't wrote shaders you write kernels. (2) a GPU can do most of the functions of a CPU, the difference is in things like branch prediction and caching. (3) threads execute in blocks of 16 or some other round number. There is no performance loss as long as all threads in the same block take the same execution path.
GPUs are much faster for code that can be parallelized (basically this means having many cores doing the same thing, but on different data). However there is a signficant complexity in isolating hte parts of the code that can be done in parallel. Additionally, there is a cost to moving data to the GPU's memory, and also from the GPU memory to the GPU cores. CPU's on the other hand, have a cache architecture that means that much of the time, memory access is extremely fast.
Given progress in the last 10 years, the set of algorithms that can be parallelized is very large. So the GPU advantage should be overwhelming. The main issue is that the complexity writing a program that does things on the GPU is much higher.
This is really cool, pun intended, their cooling system really is similar to human blood flow (fractal capillary structure). See video here as the article just discusses the application to cooling solar cells (which is cool in its own right), but not how the cooling actually resembles bloodflow in humans.
Here is my summary of the paper, from the authors website
Entropy is usually defined as a function of the macroscopic state of a system at a given time. If we assume that the system evolves so as to move in the direction of maximum entropy at any time, then this defines some dynamics. What the authors propose is a foreward looking dynamic where the system moves in the direction that maximizes entropy and some future point. This automatically builds in forward looking (i.e. intelligent) behaviour into the system.
They are able to demonstrate various kinds of "intelligent" behavior arising from this simple and general heuristic. The comparisons with human and animal behavior are in my opinion ridiculous. The value of the paper is in demonstrating that a wide variety of forward looking optimizations can be accomplished with a simple rule.
I haven't dealt with the court system before, in any country, but I'm guessing that in practice things are more involved than simply showing up in court and proving that what you said is true. For example, maybe she made some statements that could be legally argued are her opinion. Maybe the other side claim that these statements which were her opinion, were defamatory. And maybe the legal jargon is complex enough that she never realizes that they were making this claim, and therefore never makes a simple argument that these statments were her opinion.
Anyway, this is all a guess but this is what this issue is really about: is the legal system so complex and difficult that even when people are clearly in the right, they are unable to win a court case without having access to expensive lawyers.
Betteridge's law of mods: By the time you get to a post compaining about a -1 score of its parent, the parent has already been modded up to "(3) insightful".
I imagine that the issue is not so much that they want to fork LLVM, but they want to integrate LLVM with XCode (I'm guessing they already do, but when I stopped using XCode it was still using GCC) for static analysis. The main difference between LLVM and GCC that allows this is that LLVM is not monolithic, so you can use its code analysis/parsing features without actually compiling, and you can rely on the stability of these components. Licences may or may not be an issue depeding on whether it is necessary to link to LLVM components at compile time or not. But at least with LLVM you have this option (while staying closed source).
Actually that seems to be the case here. Basedo on this Guardian article, where she says "He said that I was damaging his reputation and that it was all done maliciously" (while nowhere in the article does it say that the company disputes the truth of her claims)
Based on the article, it would seem that everything she said was either true, or opinion (she called their actions "disgraceful"), but she felt intimidated by the giant potential liability, and couldn't afford council. I imagine that even if everything you say is 100% true (or opinion), it is very intimidating to have to represent yourself in a trial where you face a liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The fact that it was posted as "ask Slashdot" is irrelevant. The purpose of your post is to drive people towards your site and promote interest in your party, and is therefore more on the spirit of an ad even if it is technically phrased as a question. The fact that you have said absolutely zero about what type party stands for aside from hollow rhetoric about other politicians being bad guys suggests that you are not even interested in having a serious discussion here. Again my sole suggestion is that you act with more respect and stop filling up the front page with garbage.
I would like you to base your policies around some coherent principles so that I can know if you are worth investigating further. When you make a post like you have just made, it sounds like you are just trying to taylor your policies to getting votes from a particular constituency. Your post does not deserve to be on Slashdot. If you had stated some core principals and how they apply to the use of technology in society, that would have been something worth reading, although it would still not be your place to advertise it here.
If you are serious about politics I would suggest you act with more decency, and stop polluting news sites with articles that are not news, but rather promoting your own agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Both the cash dividends and share repurchase of same value have equivalent effect on the wealth of the shareholders. This assumes that all other factors such as the taxation are the same.
also here (pdf)
While buybacks and dividends are mathematical equivalents, executives and investors conceptualize them very differently.
Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. Sometimes they run out of productive things to do with the money they have, so the most responsible thing to do is return it to shareholders. Apple's strategy is to make a lot of money now, not invest for some far future payoff.
They effectively disappear. Buy-backs and dividends are functionally equivalent.
I'm agree this tweet could have been flagged automatically. However, I question that a trading algorithm that automatically trades on such tweets could recognize this as a "once in a decade" type event.
You are right. Even in California, anti-discrimination law doesn't cover how many children you have.
Are you implying that unmarried people are more likely to be dbags, or that there is a reason to especially dislike unmarried dbags as oppposed to married dbags? Either way you come accross as very bigoted.
Yes you are right about having kids not being a protected class, although marital status is.
Where is the evidence that this drop was caused by HFT algorithms? Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that computers are yet capable of parsing that tweet and recognizing that its content is extraordinary (as opposed to the usual tweets that come from that account and others). A few minutes is easily enough time for humans to react.
Care to make an argument based on its merits rather than attack a strawman "brogrammer", brah?
"...we want people who understand that they are making a product for normal people, for their family and friends. So we often hire them because either they have their own kids..."
My understanding of federal anti-discrimination laws, is that this is illegal. Of course these laws were designed to protect women and Blacks, not beta males, so of course nothing will actually happen.
Nothing in the real world is truly self similar because eventually you get to atoms. The IBM water coolers really are fractal. To disagree is not pedantic, it's wrong
I was intentionally simplifying, but I agree with your more detailed exposition. I did understate the extent to which fundamental issues related to the GPU architecture are still relevant. My own experience is in embarrassingly parallelizable problems so my knowledge of these issues is nor very deep.
What you are describing is GPU computing 5 to 10 years ago. Now, (1) you don't wrote shaders you write kernels. (2) a GPU can do most of the functions of a CPU, the difference is in things like branch prediction and caching. (3) threads execute in blocks of 16 or some other round number. There is no performance loss as long as all threads in the same block take the same execution path.
GPUs are much faster for code that can be parallelized (basically this means having many cores doing the same thing, but on different data). However there is a signficant complexity in isolating hte parts of the code that can be done in parallel. Additionally, there is a cost to moving data to the GPU's memory, and also from the GPU memory to the GPU cores. CPU's on the other hand, have a cache architecture that means that much of the time, memory access is extremely fast.
Given progress in the last 10 years, the set of algorithms that can be parallelized is very large. So the GPU advantage should be overwhelming. The main issue is that the complexity writing a program that does things on the GPU is much higher.
This is really cool, pun intended, their cooling system really is similar to human blood flow (fractal capillary structure). See video here as the article just discusses the application to cooling solar cells (which is cool in its own right), but not how the cooling actually resembles bloodflow in humans.
Here is my summary of the paper, from the authors website
Entropy is usually defined as a function of the macroscopic state of a system at a given time. If we assume that the system evolves so as to move in the direction of maximum entropy at any time, then this defines some dynamics. What the authors propose is a foreward looking dynamic where the system moves in the direction that maximizes entropy and some future point. This automatically builds in forward looking (i.e. intelligent) behaviour into the system.
They are able to demonstrate various kinds of "intelligent" behavior arising from this simple and general heuristic. The comparisons with human and animal behavior are in my opinion ridiculous. The value of the paper is in demonstrating that a wide variety of forward looking optimizations can be accomplished with a simple rule.
See the other reply to my comment? I don't claim any expertise bit the other reply was convincing to me.
I haven't dealt with the court system before, in any country, but I'm guessing that in practice things are more involved than simply showing up in court and proving that what you said is true. For example, maybe she made some statements that could be legally argued are her opinion. Maybe the other side claim that these statements which were her opinion, were defamatory. And maybe the legal jargon is complex enough that she never realizes that they were making this claim, and therefore never makes a simple argument that these statments were her opinion.
Anyway, this is all a guess but this is what this issue is really about: is the legal system so complex and difficult that even when people are clearly in the right, they are unable to win a court case without having access to expensive lawyers.
Yes you seem to be right, thanks for the correction.
Betteridge's law of mods: By the time you get to a post compaining about a -1 score of its parent, the parent has already been modded up to "(3) insightful".
I imagine that the issue is not so much that they want to fork LLVM, but they want to integrate LLVM with XCode (I'm guessing they already do, but when I stopped using XCode it was still using GCC) for static analysis. The main difference between LLVM and GCC that allows this is that LLVM is not monolithic, so you can use its code analysis/parsing features without actually compiling, and you can rely on the stability of these components. Licences may or may not be an issue depeding on whether it is necessary to link to LLVM components at compile time or not. But at least with LLVM you have this option (while staying closed source).
Actually that seems to be the case here. Basedo on this Guardian article, where she says "He said that I was damaging his reputation and that it was all done maliciously" (while nowhere in the article does it say that the company disputes the truth of her claims)
Based on the article, it would seem that everything she said was either true, or opinion (she called their actions "disgraceful"), but she felt intimidated by the giant potential liability, and couldn't afford council. I imagine that even if everything you say is 100% true (or opinion), it is very intimidating to have to represent yourself in a trial where you face a liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The fact that it was posted as "ask Slashdot" is irrelevant. The purpose of your post is to drive people towards your site and promote interest in your party, and is therefore more on the spirit of an ad even if it is technically phrased as a question. The fact that you have said absolutely zero about what type party stands for aside from hollow rhetoric about other politicians being bad guys suggests that you are not even interested in having a serious discussion here. Again my sole suggestion is that you act with more respect and stop filling up the front page with garbage.
If this really is you, you should be ashamed of yourself spamming comments like this.
I would like you to base your policies around some coherent principles so that I can know if you are worth investigating further. When you make a post like you have just made, it sounds like you are just trying to taylor your policies to getting votes from a particular constituency. Your post does not deserve to be on Slashdot. If you had stated some core principals and how they apply to the use of technology in society, that would have been something worth reading, although it would still not be your place to advertise it here.
If you are serious about politics I would suggest you act with more decency, and stop polluting news sites with articles that are not news, but rather promoting your own agenda.