You misunderstand slavery, it's actually not a good thing for corporations. Slaves are capital goods rather than labor, you have to take care of them and they tend to depreciate. Workers who think they are free but are in actuality indentured servants are much cheaper since you can externalize most of the costs to others.
I doubt a colony on an unexplored planet with indigenous life would really count as being in a "controlled" environment. Now, if we're talking a lifeless ball of rock, then ok sure. *shrug* The exact number is difficult to pin down and there are many different factors. All I'm saying is if you send out ten colony ships to ten different planets with 100 colonists on each ship and don't check in on them again for a century then I think the number of successful colonies would be much lower than 10 and that if you had a larger number of colonists the success rates would go up significantly. (of course the costs would rise as well) It's all pretty hypothetical though, we're unlikely to do anything of that nature any time soon.
Here's a quick quote from the Wikipedia page on Minimum Viable Population " An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored." I read the citation abstracts and that seems relatively straightforward to me. Obviously the number will depend heavily on what sorts of technology we're positing, how many defects are acceptable, how long we want to ensure survival of the colony and what sort of social rules will be imposed. For example, if monogamy were discouraged in favor of polyamory in order to increase the number of genetic combinations then the initial population size could probably be smaller. Similarly genetic screening of the colonists and/or sending additional genetic material could also make a smaller group more feasible.
That would have all kinds of side effects beyond just making HFT unworkable. I suggest a much more modest restriction. All traders with direct access must be treated equally, and the barrier to entry for direct access must be set low enough that some guy in his home office can reasonably afford/qualify for that. So, the access time for the folks with the co-located servers can't be any better than that of the home trader in Alaska. Classic leveling of the playing field, it's what government regulation is supposed to do.
As an engineer that could have been affected by these shenanigans, I hope that each of these companies gets spanked and spanked hard. A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.
Ha, hahahaha, you still believe those people are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That's so quaint.
That gene pool would be way too small. Additionally with that few members in a colony you wouldn't have enough essential skills to maintain a technological civilization. You could mitigate the gene pool size problem by genetically engineering the original colonists and sending them with plenty of additional sperm/ova and some IVF equipment. Unless you have really capable AI/Robots, sufficient to do child rearing to adulthood, I don't think you could raise enough children fast enough to solve the technology issue though. A more appropriate colony size is probably a thousand people. That gives you enough enough diversity of gene pool and skills that even deaths and other accidents would be unlikely to ruin things. This of course assumes that you're essentially cut off, if follow on ships would be arriving on a regular basis you could start with much lower levels.
We have the scientific knowledge to achieve speeds greater than that. The engineering portion is still being worked on but that's just a matter of time and budget.
Maybe because environmental activists are often the worst offenders in helping to ensure we destroy the environment? They get so worked up on "the perfect solution" that they block vastly improved but imperfect ones. For example anti-nuclear activists are pretty much responsible for global warming, if it wasn't for them killing the whole atomic energy industry after three mile island we'd be using uranium instead of coal. I find that particularly hilarious because radioactive carbon-14 gets spewed into the atmosphere without any form of control while spent fuel rods are pretty much contained safely on site. (and wouldn't exist at all if we had a proper reprocessing infrastructure)
I can see it now. You update the firmware in your fridge because it kept ordering milk too early and end up bricking the whole thing when there is a bug with the new version. Turns out the manufacturer doesn't make that model anymore and installing a replacement chip is more expensive than just buying another fridge. Yes, that sounds like fun.
I'm not seeing that. Treason is pretty narrowly defined in the US. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
He hasn't levied war against us.
He hasn't adhered to our enemies (despite our current tiff about Ukraine I don't think there is an argument that the Russians were our enemy at that time or that they are currently, obviously that could change in the future but that's not relevant to this discussion)
So all you're left with is whether he provided "aid and comfort" to our enemies. I'm not seeing any specific examples of where he's done so. Unlike Snowden, he didn't just dump everything he had. From what I can tell his revelations have been highly embarrassing but it's hardly a big secret that the NSA was spying on our enemies and the techniques he's revealed don't seem to be anything that an opposing force wouldn't have already known or suspected.
I'd like to hear a concrete example if you've got one.
To be fair to Carter, most of the problems with the hostage rescue were actually military service interoperability problems. JSOC was founded AFTER the disaster because the military realized their own processes were not up to par. That said, his politics and economics were not so great. He's been an awesome ex-president though!
Sadly, HR departments are risk averse and that is likely not the correct path. Often times they use a degree in the correct field as a first filter, so his resume would get dropped before it was even manually reviewed. My suggestion, find a program at a local state school and slog it out.
The main problem is that the NSA has experienced scope creep and grown excessively large. Currently they handle SIGINT both foreign and domestic, while the head of the NSA also runs Cyber Command and the Central Security Service. The correct course of action would be to split them into multiple agencies with different chains of command. The most obvious looks something like this:
NSA - Foreign SIGINT, leaves the DOD, becomes independent agency but still reports to DNI like the CIA
New Agency - Domestic SIGINT, under the DOJ
Combined Cyber Command/CSS - Now separate organization but stays under DOD
I await the righteous Republican outrage over this violation of free market principals and the intrusion of big government into private commerce. Oh, you mean that was all just talk? Move along then.
Sure, bad things happen, no doubt. The issue is that in this case, as in many other corporate environmental disasters, is that they were over optimizing for the short term and attempting to externalize a variety of costs that shouldn't be. They did that because the perceived risk was less than the cost of fixing the problems. A quick look a the consequences suggests it wasn't that traumatic for them:
$287 mm actual damages
$507.5 mm punitive damages
$2 Billion cleanup costs
$1 Billion settlement costs of civil and criminal cases
A significant portion of the legal and cleanup charges were recovered from their insurers
So they paid less than $2 Billion dollars (after insurance) compared to their net income at that time of roughly $5 Billion and they didn't even have to pay it all right away, it was spread over many years while inflation reduced its value. For an oil spill that was enormously damaging to the environment and easily preventable given reasonable precautions that's an extremely light punishment. Not one person went to jail and the company essentially got a slap on the wrist.
You obviously have no concept of net present value or appropriate payback periods. Making a purchase that saves you X per year and only costs you 2X one time is an enormously good idea as long as the lifespan of the product is greater than 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand slavery, it's actually not a good thing for corporations. Slaves are capital goods rather than labor, you have to take care of them and they tend to depreciate. Workers who think they are free but are in actuality indentured servants are much cheaper since you can externalize most of the costs to others.
I doubt a colony on an unexplored planet with indigenous life would really count as being in a "controlled" environment. Now, if we're talking a lifeless ball of rock, then ok sure. *shrug* The exact number is difficult to pin down and there are many different factors. All I'm saying is if you send out ten colony ships to ten different planets with 100 colonists on each ship and don't check in on them again for a century then I think the number of successful colonies would be much lower than 10 and that if you had a larger number of colonists the success rates would go up significantly. (of course the costs would rise as well) It's all pretty hypothetical though, we're unlikely to do anything of that nature any time soon.
Here's a quick quote from the Wikipedia page on Minimum Viable Population " An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored." I read the citation abstracts and that seems relatively straightforward to me. Obviously the number will depend heavily on what sorts of technology we're positing, how many defects are acceptable, how long we want to ensure survival of the colony and what sort of social rules will be imposed. For example, if monogamy were discouraged in favor of polyamory in order to increase the number of genetic combinations then the initial population size could probably be smaller. Similarly genetic screening of the colonists and/or sending additional genetic material could also make a smaller group more feasible.
That would have all kinds of side effects beyond just making HFT unworkable. I suggest a much more modest restriction. All traders with direct access must be treated equally, and the barrier to entry for direct access must be set low enough that some guy in his home office can reasonably afford/qualify for that. So, the access time for the folks with the co-located servers can't be any better than that of the home trader in Alaska. Classic leveling of the playing field, it's what government regulation is supposed to do.
As an engineer that could have been affected by these shenanigans, I hope that each of these companies gets spanked and spanked hard. A message needs to be sent that abusing their talented, non-union labor force will have stinging consequences.
Ha, hahahaha, you still believe those people are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That's so quaint.
Actually I was thinking more of laser pumped solar sails.
That gene pool would be way too small. Additionally with that few members in a colony you wouldn't have enough essential skills to maintain a technological civilization. You could mitigate the gene pool size problem by genetically engineering the original colonists and sending them with plenty of additional sperm/ova and some IVF equipment. Unless you have really capable AI/Robots, sufficient to do child rearing to adulthood, I don't think you could raise enough children fast enough to solve the technology issue though. A more appropriate colony size is probably a thousand people. That gives you enough enough diversity of gene pool and skills that even deaths and other accidents would be unlikely to ruin things. This of course assumes that you're essentially cut off, if follow on ships would be arriving on a regular basis you could start with much lower levels.
We have the scientific knowledge to achieve speeds greater than that. The engineering portion is still being worked on but that's just a matter of time and budget.
I suppose the question is, does an IP address constitute "a place to be searched" or is that restricted to only geographical locations?
It's pretty simple really:
If cost of upgrade > (benefits + risk) then the upgrade won't be done. (Risk being chance of problems times cost if problems occur)
In most organization what will likely happen instead is that you'll take a good backup and perhaps virtualize or sandbox the system in question.
Of course some bad organizations ignore the risk part of the equation which leads to poor decisions about replacement timelines.
Sure, just not by an employer.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Maybe because environmental activists are often the worst offenders in helping to ensure we destroy the environment? They get so worked up on "the perfect solution" that they block vastly improved but imperfect ones. For example anti-nuclear activists are pretty much responsible for global warming, if it wasn't for them killing the whole atomic energy industry after three mile island we'd be using uranium instead of coal. I find that particularly hilarious because radioactive carbon-14 gets spewed into the atmosphere without any form of control while spent fuel rods are pretty much contained safely on site. (and wouldn't exist at all if we had a proper reprocessing infrastructure)
I can see it now. You update the firmware in your fridge because it kept ordering milk too early and end up bricking the whole thing when there is a bug with the new version. Turns out the manufacturer doesn't make that model anymore and installing a replacement chip is more expensive than just buying another fridge. Yes, that sounds like fun.
Around the end of the power of labor in the late 1970s. What rock have you been hiding under?
So you're enjoying early retirement then?
I'm not seeing that. Treason is pretty narrowly defined in the US. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
He hasn't levied war against us.
He hasn't adhered to our enemies (despite our current tiff about Ukraine I don't think there is an argument that the Russians were our enemy at that time or that they are currently, obviously that could change in the future but that's not relevant to this discussion)
So all you're left with is whether he provided "aid and comfort" to our enemies. I'm not seeing any specific examples of where he's done so. Unlike Snowden, he didn't just dump everything he had. From what I can tell his revelations have been highly embarrassing but it's hardly a big secret that the NSA was spying on our enemies and the techniques he's revealed don't seem to be anything that an opposing force wouldn't have already known or suspected.
I'd like to hear a concrete example if you've got one.
To be fair to Carter, most of the problems with the hostage rescue were actually military service interoperability problems. JSOC was founded AFTER the disaster because the military realized their own processes were not up to par. That said, his politics and economics were not so great. He's been an awesome ex-president though!
Sadly, HR departments are risk averse and that is likely not the correct path. Often times they use a degree in the correct field as a first filter, so his resume would get dropped before it was even manually reviewed. My suggestion, find a program at a local state school and slog it out.
The main problem is that the NSA has experienced scope creep and grown excessively large. Currently they handle SIGINT both foreign and domestic, while the head of the NSA also runs Cyber Command and the Central Security Service. The correct course of action would be to split them into multiple agencies with different chains of command. The most obvious looks something like this:
NSA - Foreign SIGINT, leaves the DOD, becomes independent agency but still reports to DNI like the CIA
New Agency - Domestic SIGINT, under the DOJ
Combined Cyber Command/CSS - Now separate organization but stays under DOD
Where do you live that gas is only $1.129???
I await the righteous Republican outrage over this violation of free market principals and the intrusion of big government into private commerce. Oh, you mean that was all just talk? Move along then.
Quit pushing your anti-plant agenda!
Sure, bad things happen, no doubt. The issue is that in this case, as in many other corporate environmental disasters, is that they were over optimizing for the short term and attempting to externalize a variety of costs that shouldn't be. They did that because the perceived risk was less than the cost of fixing the problems. A quick look a the consequences suggests it wasn't that traumatic for them: $287 mm actual damages $507.5 mm punitive damages $2 Billion cleanup costs $1 Billion settlement costs of civil and criminal cases A significant portion of the legal and cleanup charges were recovered from their insurers So they paid less than $2 Billion dollars (after insurance) compared to their net income at that time of roughly $5 Billion and they didn't even have to pay it all right away, it was spread over many years while inflation reduced its value. For an oil spill that was enormously damaging to the environment and easily preventable given reasonable precautions that's an extremely light punishment. Not one person went to jail and the company essentially got a slap on the wrist.
You obviously have no concept of net present value or appropriate payback periods. Making a purchase that saves you X per year and only costs you 2X one time is an enormously good idea as long as the lifespan of the product is greater than 2 years.