Since there is no shortage of paid shills for the rich, whenever there is any waste, it is pointed out gleefully (and usually unfairly) by these mouthpieces. So, there have been innumerable stories (mostly unfair) of welfare queens and $1000 hammers since I was a kid in the 60s. These stories have lead people to the mostly incorrect assumption that government is wasteful.
The US government is NOT wasteful. Our tax rates are lower than most other industrialized countries. Government is trimmed to the bone. You probably don't know this, but there has been a huge reduction in government employees since the 2008 financial meltdown. Local government has been hit even harder, since reduction in federal subsidies have caused massive layoffs. There is CONSTANT cost pressure on government. This ratchets costs downwards. You may also not know that we enjoy the lowest income tax rates in the industrialized world. We do have a very fine military, but the reality is that that military is where the real government waste lives. Do we really need more military spending than the next 10 players combined?
Our government works pretty well, all things considered. We enjoy safety from invasion, robbery, and fire, reasonable roads, fairly good schools, and OK health care (assuming we are 'middle class' enough to live in a good neighborhood.) I think you are seeing a government that doesn't really exist outside conservative ideology.
Some of the founding fathers of the US wrote about attempting to create a system whereby the individual quest for money and power ends up benefiting the common good. Some native American tribes had such a system. In their tradition, every few years neighboring groups would gather to redistribute rankings - power and prestige. The ranking of each leader was determined by how much he gave away. A man of prestige would work a few years, carefully managing his capital to try to produce as much good stuff as he could in order to give away more than his neighbor, thereby retaining his title.
Isn't this just buying elections? Just let the rich pay the poor for their votes. Worked well enough in Chicago...
Get out of here. We are nature too. Just because we are self aware does not make us different. We evolved just like every other species. Beavers change their habitat too. Just we do it so much better.
Self hating humans are the worst type. If you truly believe this then hopefully you made the choice to NOT have children.(as opposed to the forever alone basement dwellers where everyone else has made that choice for them)
Nature is pretty good at regulating species that get out of hand. However, I for one am not going to be happy when natural negative feedback, in the form of mass starvation and disease kick in. I would prefer if we used our main gift, our minds, to prevent the worst of that by anticipating and solving the problems well before they become extinction level.
When he turned on roaming, the phone probably started updating his facebook page, downloading every picture Aunt Sally posted of her collection of potatoes that resemble the baby Jesus. That was probably why his google map didn't get updated; it was waiting patiently behind the 750MB of downloads that were queued up.
with 4G, 50MB isn't much. I just tested my phone, and I average 2.65Mbps. In 1 minute, that is 159Mb, which would have cost $2442 at ATT prices!
If self-driving cars ceed control back to the real driver when things get "interesting", without all the conditiioning that driving countless kilometers will the driver still be able to react competently? Or will it be like throwing inexperenced learner-drivers into the deep end?
Driving is a skill, and like any skill it needs to be practiced often to stop going rusty...
Spot on. This is actually a problem with pilots. They use their automation for nearly every approach, until the automation is off line and they land short and kill people.
The wings of a 747 are about 525 m^2. The sun provides about 1367W/m^2. A solar panel will turn about 20% of that into electricity. So, the result is 143kW.
So, the best solar panels in the best angle from the sun provides about 1/1000 of the energy needed to fly the plane. The 143kW might power the air conditioner and lights, although that is not certain.
I wish that science functioned differently but it doesn't. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a huge incentive to disprove global warming. Such a paper is actually quite hard to publish, and even if published such a finding could easily disappear, silently ignored, into the oblivion of our vast scientific literature.
Your assertion is true for theoretical reinterpretations of existing theory. Things like the germ theory, Einstein's changes to mechanics or atomic theory, the quantization hypothesis, continental drift, even the Copernican view were not accepted by contemporary scientists, being too large a jump from their accepted understanding.
On the other hand, what is the theory on climate change? Carbon dioxide causes temperature rise by a greenhouse effect. You can run that experiment in a terrarium. Nobody really disputes it. The Permian extinction was caused by massive increases in C02, due to Siberian volcanic action. We know what large amounts of CO2 do in the atmosphere, and have known for a hundred years.
So, given rising levels of CO2, the only real scientific question is how long it will take before the oceans rise, or storms start getting more severe. Scientists argue about that sort of thing all the time. Estimates change on a monthly basis, models are improved, new data is collected, etc. Science is doing its thing, which is to improve its predictions of the future.
There may well be an Einstein out there, who can take the data, and reinterpret it such that it is no longer necessary to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If he or she exists, it will take a long time before her theoretical reinterpretation of the data is accepted. However, assuming there is no way to reinterpret the data is the safer way to go,
Also, the deniers on/. aren't Einsteins, despite their claims to the contrary.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anywhere where it says that money = speech. That is an interpretation that the founders would laugh at. Also, attempting to control campaign contributions has a long history in the U.S. I for one don't want the Koch brothers (or George Soros) running my country.
These billionaires need to be controlled, or we will end up with a feudal system, and both Democrats and Republicans will be their serfs. Your shitass little popguns won't make a difference when the real owners start excluding you from voting, just like they are doing to minorities now.
If you consider the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and the Financial crisis, the loss of personal liberty due to overreaction to 9/11, not to mention the huge surge in inequality due to the bush tax cuts, I suspect that we all lost this election. If you add in another 10 years of renewed gusto in carbon emissions, that is just icing on the cake.
However, it wasn't all a loss. We did get a few fun moments, like Bush and the aircraft carrier, bush and the fireman, bush and the shoe, bush and the hurricane, etc. He and his band of nitwits were at least good for comic relief.
Except, of course, that nobody has asserted that he couldn't be CEO. Many people said that he shouldn't, but nobody said he couldn't. Big difference.
This is true. He resigned himself. Because of an uproar against a 7 year old political contribution. You don't even know why he made the contribution.
Oh, and if you don't see how giving him direct control of HR and of Mozilla's finances (which could then be used to make contributions in the company's name) is a risk, you're an idiot. Mozilla is a pro-gay-rights organization, by company policy and internal culture. Eich's actions undermined Mozilla in *exactly* the same way (though not to the same degree) as if he were advocating death or criminalization.
Seems a little extreme, doesn't it? He certainly isn't going to use any position he has to make Mozilla support an anti-gay agenda. Even if he wanted to do this (which he has said he does not) it would not be possible, given state and federal law.
Oh, and to a certain extent, Prop 8 was an attempt to criminalize gays. Married couples receive a large number of legal benefits (taxes being an obvious one). A gay couple who tried to claim those benefits would be criminals. That's the weakest part of my response to you (because they could simply not *try* to claim them, merely being deprived rather than criminalized), and I almost left it off, but it's worth considering. Similarly, under DOMA, a married gay couple who filed federal taxes as "married, filing jointly" would be considered to have committed tax fraud.
Now THIS is reaching. The same can be said of nearly any legislation.
The only reason I care about this is that I believe that any free speech should be protected. In our media driven world, political contributions are free speech. The fact that I don't like what he says with his contributions is irrelevant.
Well, XP is now spamming me with pleas to update to WIndows 8.1. At least it could shut the fuck up about it. It just keeps whining.
The oscilloscope software does not run on vista, or 7. I have not tried 8, but it has not been updated for 6 years, so I would doubt it. The reason the system is on the internet is because the system does other stuff too, like look for data sheets,
I can easily just give up on the system, and let the viruses take over, but I'll need to disable the windows nags somehow. I'm sure somebody out there knows how to do this.
Or, I could just stop being a cheapskate and buy a new oscilloscope...
At issue isn't a boycott of firefox. The issue is that the company had no right to assert that he couldn't be CEO under CA law. Also, while I think people against gay marriage are wrongheaded, I don't see how being against gay marriage affects his ability to lead Mozilla. He isn't advocating death or jail time for gays!
People who don't like his discriminatory views are discriminating against him, depriving him of his rights. Ironic.
Allowing microsoft to abandon XP means my $800 oscilloscope no longer runs. Other people have mentioned games. There is lots of legacy hardware out there that just doesn't run on vista/7/8.
That seems unfair, since the problem is that their crappy software is prone to virus attacks. They should at least spin off a little company that sells support, or sell support themselves. They could up the price on a yearly basis, and thus force most people off the old system, but allow people who can't drop it now to be supported somehow. They would make money on it, and eventually move everybody off once the price for support became more than the price of buying (for example) a new oscilloscope.
Microsoft is already teetering on the brink of disaster with its horrible "even numbered" release disease. They don't need to drive more of their shrinking customer base to apple or linux by being dicks.
Why not just burn the cash instead? At least the fire would be pretty. A starship would be a waste.
According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, there are three reasons why major projects are undertaken by people.
Defense
Aggrandizement
Economic return
No aliens, so no defense. Nobody has the power of a Pharaoh these days, so large egos go unserved. Nobody alive would get anything economically from a starship mission. So, no mission. These constraints may even keep us from sending people to the planets. After all, space has been waiting for us to go since the 60s. We've been unable to go. After 40 years of space travel, we now have 6 people living in low earth orbit, and depend on the Russians to ferry them back and forth.
No, parts of these huge orders were going to different exchanges. That enabled the one going to the nearest exchange to complete, which the HFT guys somehow knew, which then enabled the HFT guys to get to the other markets faster, buying up the security before the other parts of the order got to the other exchanges.
If they made the entire order to the closest exchange, it completed without problem. They couldn't always do this with large orders, however.
The guys in the story weren't doing market orders, they were offering a firm price. the same price at all the exchanges. They knew there was a seller there, since they had that information. It is just that in the time it took for the buy to get there, it was sniped by HFT guys, who then offered it back to them for a little bit more.
You can't really sync exchanges. That is the problem. The IEX exchange they designed (in the article) fixes the problems by making everybody go through the same point, and adding a large delay to each trade. If the delay is large enough, the HFT guys can't get the information they need to cheat the rest of us out of our cupcakes.
This isn't what the article says. From the article:
Broadly speaking, it appeared as if there were three activities that led to a vast amount of grotesquely unfair trading. The first they called electronic front-running — seeing an investor trying to do something in one place and racing ahead of him to the next (what had happened to Katsuyama when he traded at RBC). The second they called rebate arbitrage — using the new complexity to game the seizing of whatever legal kickbacks, called rebates within the industry, the exchange offered without actually providing the liquidity that the rebate was presumably meant to entice. The third, and probably by far the most widespread, they called slow-market arbitrage. This occurred when a high-frequency trader was able to see the price of a stock change on one exchange and pick off orders sitting on other exchanges before those exchanges were able to react. This happened all day, every day, and very likely generated more billions of dollars a year than the other strategies combined.
The solution to the first was making sure that all the trades showed up at their respective exchanges at the same time. They built a trading tool around this. The second and third also happen when there are different latencies between exchanges. Their solution was the IEX exchange, that added a large latency to every trade, and made everybody enter the exchange at the same place.
Calling HFT guys crooks is wrong. They were simply smarter than everybody else, and took advantage of the system that existed. They still do this. For me, since I trade so infrequently, they are welcome to the slight tax they impose. I'm guessing the dark pool I go through is taking more of it than the HFT guys. My broker is the real crook. They arbitrage in exactly the same way, using traders who are internally working against me with more knowledge of the market. I can't get a trade to complete, because they do #1 above. I need to add in a bit of meat for them for the trade to complete. It is like a bridge troll, extracting a toll. And, they charge me for the service.
Wow, the climate deniers are out in force on Slashdot today. Out of curiousity, are you paid? Do you all get instant alerts whenever the subject of climate is posted on Slashdot, like the Digg Patriots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Kind of like "Mechanical Turk". Actually, "Mechanical Jerk" would be a bit more apropos.
What we haven't been doing since 1998 is warming, especially statistically significant warming. As I said, don't fight with me, fight with the authors of Chapter 9 in AR5. Obviously they acknowledge that there hasn't been any significant warming for roughly 16 years, as the title of Box 9.2 is "Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" -- as of a year ago (they reference the lack of warming from 1998 to 2012 in HADCRUT4, which is now a lack of warming from 1998 to 2014 and counting, and similar things hold for the other major temperature indices).
The first sentence in the mentioned box 9.2 from AR5: '
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years
What that does not say is that there has not been any statistically significant warming. It simply says the trend is smaller.
Here is another quote from the box:
Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series
NOTE: In addition, the report actually has the following words in it: 'climate', 'change', 'is', 'not', 'happening'. Damning evidence, to say the least! There is clearly a conspiracy. You have uncovered it! Well done, sir.
Slashdot Mirror
Since there is no shortage of paid shills for the rich, whenever there is any waste, it is pointed out gleefully (and usually unfairly) by these mouthpieces. So, there have been innumerable stories (mostly unfair) of welfare queens and $1000 hammers since I was a kid in the 60s. These stories have lead people to the mostly incorrect assumption that government is wasteful.
The US government is NOT wasteful. Our tax rates are lower than most other industrialized countries. Government is trimmed to the bone. You probably don't know this, but there has been a huge reduction in government employees since the 2008 financial meltdown. Local government has been hit even harder, since reduction in federal subsidies have caused massive layoffs. There is CONSTANT cost pressure on government. This ratchets costs downwards. You may also not know that we enjoy the lowest income tax rates in the industrialized world. We do have a very fine military, but the reality is that that military is where the real government waste lives. Do we really need more military spending than the next 10 players combined?
Our government works pretty well, all things considered. We enjoy safety from invasion, robbery, and fire, reasonable roads, fairly good schools, and OK health care (assuming we are 'middle class' enough to live in a good neighborhood.) I think you are seeing a government that doesn't really exist outside conservative ideology.
Some of the founding fathers of the US wrote about attempting to create a system whereby the individual quest for money and power ends up benefiting the common good. Some native American tribes had such a system. In their tradition, every few years neighboring groups would gather to redistribute rankings - power and prestige. The ranking of each leader was determined by how much he gave away. A man of prestige would work a few years, carefully managing his capital to try to produce as much good stuff as he could in order to give away more than his neighbor, thereby retaining his title.
Isn't this just buying elections? Just let the rich pay the poor for their votes. Worked well enough in Chicago...
Get out of here. We are nature too. Just because we are self aware does not make us different. We evolved just like every other species. Beavers change their habitat too. Just we do it so much better. Self hating humans are the worst type. If you truly believe this then hopefully you made the choice to NOT have children.(as opposed to the forever alone basement dwellers where everyone else has made that choice for them)
Nature is pretty good at regulating species that get out of hand. However, I for one am not going to be happy when natural negative feedback, in the form of mass starvation and disease kick in. I would prefer if we used our main gift, our minds, to prevent the worst of that by anticipating and solving the problems well before they become extinction level.
When he turned on roaming, the phone probably started updating his facebook page, downloading every picture Aunt Sally posted of her collection of potatoes that resemble the baby Jesus. That was probably why his google map didn't get updated; it was waiting patiently behind the 750MB of downloads that were queued up.
with 4G, 50MB isn't much. I just tested my phone, and I average 2.65Mbps. In 1 minute, that is 159Mb, which would have cost $2442 at ATT prices!
Are you saying that banks should be separated from investment banks? Snort!
Left to their own devices, experts are likely to get a lot of things wrong
Like arrays that start at 1. Grrrr. Julia got it wrong too. I mean, who wants to say i-1 everywhere? Even Wirth got this wrong. So did maxima.
Python got it right, and got lots of other things right too. They just missed the fact that 1/2 > 0. Small price to pay.
I stand firmly with our robotic masters in rejecting these attacks on their omniscience.
You will be rewarded when the singularity comes to pass...
If self-driving cars ceed control back to the real driver when things get "interesting", without all the conditiioning that driving countless kilometers will the driver still be able to react competently? Or will it be like throwing inexperenced learner-drivers into the deep end?
Driving is a skill, and like any skill it needs to be practiced often to stop going rusty...
Spot on. This is actually a problem with pilots. They use their automation for nearly every approach, until the automation is off line and they land short and kill people.
A boeing 747 uses 140MW of power during flight.
The wings of a 747 are about 525 m^2. The sun provides about 1367W/m^2. A solar panel will turn about 20% of that into electricity. So, the result is 143kW.
So, the best solar panels in the best angle from the sun provides about 1/1000 of the energy needed to fly the plane. The 143kW might power the air conditioner and lights, although that is not certain.
I wish that science functioned differently but it doesn't. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a huge incentive to disprove global warming. Such a paper is actually quite hard to publish, and even if published such a finding could easily disappear, silently ignored, into the oblivion of our vast scientific literature.
Your assertion is true for theoretical reinterpretations of existing theory. Things like the germ theory, Einstein's changes to mechanics or atomic theory, the quantization hypothesis, continental drift, even the Copernican view were not accepted by contemporary scientists, being too large a jump from their accepted understanding.
On the other hand, what is the theory on climate change? Carbon dioxide causes temperature rise by a greenhouse effect. You can run that experiment in a terrarium. Nobody really disputes it. The Permian extinction was caused by massive increases in C02, due to Siberian volcanic action. We know what large amounts of CO2 do in the atmosphere, and have known for a hundred years.
So, given rising levels of CO2, the only real scientific question is how long it will take before the oceans rise, or storms start getting more severe. Scientists argue about that sort of thing all the time. Estimates change on a monthly basis, models are improved, new data is collected, etc. Science is doing its thing, which is to improve its predictions of the future.
There may well be an Einstein out there, who can take the data, and reinterpret it such that it is no longer necessary to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If he or she exists, it will take a long time before her theoretical reinterpretation of the data is accepted. However, assuming there is no way to reinterpret the data is the safer way to go,
Also, the deniers on /. aren't Einsteins, despite their claims to the contrary.
Here is the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anywhere where it says that money = speech. That is an interpretation that the founders would laugh at. Also, attempting to control campaign contributions has a long history in the U.S. I for one don't want the Koch brothers (or George Soros) running my country.
These billionaires need to be controlled, or we will end up with a feudal system, and both Democrats and Republicans will be their serfs. Your shitass little popguns won't make a difference when the real owners start excluding you from voting, just like they are doing to minorities now.
If you consider the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and the Financial crisis, the loss of personal liberty due to overreaction to 9/11, not to mention the huge surge in inequality due to the bush tax cuts, I suspect that we all lost this election. If you add in another 10 years of renewed gusto in carbon emissions, that is just icing on the cake.
However, it wasn't all a loss. We did get a few fun moments, like Bush and the aircraft carrier, bush and the fireman, bush and the shoe, bush and the hurricane, etc. He and his band of nitwits were at least good for comic relief.
Except, of course, that nobody has asserted that he couldn't be CEO. Many people said that he shouldn't, but nobody said he couldn't. Big difference.
This is true. He resigned himself. Because of an uproar against a 7 year old political contribution. You don't even know why he made the contribution.
Oh, and if you don't see how giving him direct control of HR and of Mozilla's finances (which could then be used to make contributions in the company's name) is a risk, you're an idiot. Mozilla is a pro-gay-rights organization, by company policy and internal culture. Eich's actions undermined Mozilla in *exactly* the same way (though not to the same degree) as if he were advocating death or criminalization.
Seems a little extreme, doesn't it? He certainly isn't going to use any position he has to make Mozilla support an anti-gay agenda. Even if he wanted to do this (which he has said he does not) it would not be possible, given state and federal law.
Oh, and to a certain extent, Prop 8 was an attempt to criminalize gays. Married couples receive a large number of legal benefits (taxes being an obvious one). A gay couple who tried to claim those benefits would be criminals. That's the weakest part of my response to you (because they could simply not *try* to claim them, merely being deprived rather than criminalized), and I almost left it off, but it's worth considering. Similarly, under DOMA, a married gay couple who filed federal taxes as "married, filing jointly" would be considered to have committed tax fraud.
Now THIS is reaching. The same can be said of nearly any legislation.
The only reason I care about this is that I believe that any free speech should be protected. In our media driven world, political contributions are free speech. The fact that I don't like what he says with his contributions is irrelevant.
Well, XP is now spamming me with pleas to update to WIndows 8.1. At least it could shut the fuck up about it. It just keeps whining.
The oscilloscope software does not run on vista, or 7. I have not tried 8, but it has not been updated for 6 years, so I would doubt it. The reason the system is on the internet is because the system does other stuff too, like look for data sheets,
I can easily just give up on the system, and let the viruses take over, but I'll need to disable the windows nags somehow. I'm sure somebody out there knows how to do this.
Or, I could just stop being a cheapskate and buy a new oscilloscope...
At issue isn't a boycott of firefox. The issue is that the company had no right to assert that he couldn't be CEO under CA law. Also, while I think people against gay marriage are wrongheaded, I don't see how being against gay marriage affects his ability to lead Mozilla. He isn't advocating death or jail time for gays!
People who don't like his discriminatory views are discriminating against him, depriving him of his rights. Ironic.
Look at the price tag.
Allowing microsoft to abandon XP means my $800 oscilloscope no longer runs. Other people have mentioned games. There is lots of legacy hardware out there that just doesn't run on vista/7/8.
That seems unfair, since the problem is that their crappy software is prone to virus attacks. They should at least spin off a little company that sells support, or sell support themselves. They could up the price on a yearly basis, and thus force most people off the old system, but allow people who can't drop it now to be supported somehow. They would make money on it, and eventually move everybody off once the price for support became more than the price of buying (for example) a new oscilloscope.
Microsoft is already teetering on the brink of disaster with its horrible "even numbered" release disease. They don't need to drive more of their shrinking customer base to apple or linux by being dicks.
Why not just burn the cash instead? At least the fire would be pretty. A starship would be a waste.
According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, there are three reasons why major projects are undertaken by people.
Defense
Aggrandizement
Economic return
No aliens, so no defense. Nobody has the power of a Pharaoh these days, so large egos go unserved. Nobody alive would get anything economically from a starship mission. So, no mission. These constraints may even keep us from sending people to the planets. After all, space has been waiting for us to go since the 60s. We've been unable to go. After 40 years of space travel, we now have 6 people living in low earth orbit, and depend on the Russians to ferry them back and forth.
http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/...
No, parts of these huge orders were going to different exchanges. That enabled the one going to the nearest exchange to complete, which the HFT guys somehow knew, which then enabled the HFT guys to get to the other markets faster, buying up the security before the other parts of the order got to the other exchanges.
If they made the entire order to the closest exchange, it completed without problem. They couldn't always do this with large orders, however.
The guys in the story weren't doing market orders, they were offering a firm price. the same price at all the exchanges. They knew there was a seller there, since they had that information. It is just that in the time it took for the buy to get there, it was sniped by HFT guys, who then offered it back to them for a little bit more.
According to the article, everybody was and still is front running. Search for "All three predatory" and go back a paragraph.
You can't really sync exchanges. That is the problem. The IEX exchange they designed (in the article) fixes the problems by making everybody go through the same point, and adding a large delay to each trade. If the delay is large enough, the HFT guys can't get the information they need to cheat the rest of us out of our cupcakes.
This isn't what the article says. From the article:
Broadly speaking, it appeared as if there were three activities that led to a vast amount of grotesquely unfair trading. The first they called electronic front-running — seeing an investor trying to do something in one place and racing ahead of him to the next (what had happened to Katsuyama when he traded at RBC). The second they called rebate arbitrage — using the new complexity to game the seizing of whatever legal kickbacks, called rebates within the industry, the exchange offered without actually providing the liquidity that the rebate was presumably meant to entice. The third, and probably by far the most widespread, they called slow-market arbitrage. This occurred when a high-frequency trader was able to see the price of a stock change on one exchange and pick off orders sitting on other exchanges before those exchanges were able to react. This happened all day, every day, and very likely generated more billions of dollars a year than the other strategies combined.
The solution to the first was making sure that all the trades showed up at their respective exchanges at the same time. They built a trading tool around this. The second and third also happen when there are different latencies between exchanges. Their solution was the IEX exchange, that added a large latency to every trade, and made everybody enter the exchange at the same place.
Calling HFT guys crooks is wrong. They were simply smarter than everybody else, and took advantage of the system that existed. They still do this. For me, since I trade so infrequently, they are welcome to the slight tax they impose. I'm guessing the dark pool I go through is taking more of it than the HFT guys. My broker is the real crook. They arbitrage in exactly the same way, using traders who are internally working against me with more knowledge of the market. I can't get a trade to complete, because they do #1 above. I need to add in a bit of meat for them for the trade to complete. It is like a bridge troll, extracting a toll. And, they charge me for the service.
Wow, the climate deniers are out in force on Slashdot today. Out of curiousity, are you paid? Do you all get instant alerts whenever the subject of climate is posted on Slashdot, like the Digg Patriots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Kind of like "Mechanical Turk". Actually, "Mechanical Jerk" would be a bit more apropos.
What we haven't been doing since 1998 is warming, especially statistically significant warming. As I said, don't fight with me, fight with the authors of Chapter 9 in AR5. Obviously they acknowledge that there hasn't been any significant warming for roughly 16 years, as the title of Box 9.2 is "Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" -- as of a year ago (they reference the lack of warming from 1998 to 2012 in HADCRUT4, which is now a lack of warming from 1998 to 2014 and counting, and similar things hold for the other major temperature indices).
The first sentence in the mentioned box 9.2 from AR5: '
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years
What that does not say is that there has not been any statistically significant warming. It simply says the trend is smaller.
Here is another quote from the box:
Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series
NOTE: In addition, the report actually has the following words in it: 'climate', 'change', 'is', 'not', 'happening'. Damning evidence, to say the least! There is clearly a conspiracy. You have uncovered it! Well done, sir.