The computer I bought was a laptop. I tried to install an older version of Windows on it, but that version didn't support the laptop hardware, and the manufacturer only supplied Vista drivers.
It means that the farmer has a small chance at getting a slightly better price. Suppose a farmer is trying to sell in London through his favorite broker. The farmer has no interest in setting up a brokerage account in New York as well, and keeping track of the exact pound/dollar exchange.
Now, suppose the farmer tries to sell for a certain price, and some buyer in New York is bidding for that price. Now, thanks to the fast trader he can make a deal. The trader will buy the pig in London, and sell the same pig in New York, skimming a very small profit off the trade. The farmer is happy because he made the sale for his price, and the New York buyer is happy too. Without the fast trader in the middle, the farmer would only be able to sell on the local market. With a slow trader in the middle, the farmer would get slightly worse bids. The slow trader requires a higher profit margin to compensate for higher chance of making a loss on the transaction. For instance, the trader could buy the pig in London, turn around, and notice the bid in New York is gone. Now the trader has to sell the pig at a loss to somebody else. The faster the connection, the less risk for the trader, and the better prices he can make.
Of course, the difference for the farmer may be small, but the profit for the trader is even smaller.
No station data has been removed, but some non-climatic adjustments have been made. Of course, if you don't trust that it was done correctly, you can always go back to the source: the national weather stations all over the world. Especially if you suspect any particular data has been tampered with, it's relatively easy to get the data from that particular weather station, and compare side by side.
Note that there are 3 global temperature anomaly records based on ground stations, plus two records based on satellite data. They all agree very well on the data. In addition, we can observe obvious changes, such as melting of Arctic ice and glaciers.
The idea that anybody could 'tweak' global temperature data, without anybody noticing, is just preposterous.
On the contrary, there is tons of public data available. All the data from global weather stations has been released, as well as all the source code from the software used to produce the statistics. If you think there's something wrong, go ahead. Check the data, find the flaws, and publish a paper. We'll wait.
Why is stock market gambling a bad thing ? It increases liquidity, and it doesn't really harm anybody.
If the "gambler" is able to consistently draw money out of the market, then it's not gambling, but clever use of information. For instance, fast traders often benefit from short term price differences between two places. They can make a profit by buying the cheap stock in London, and selling it for a penny more in New York. The effect of that trade is that they make a bit of profit, but also that they'll increase the stock price in London, and decrease it in New York, until the prices are the same again. As a result, regular traders benefit from a) increased liquidity, and b) knowing that they don't have to worry about the particular stock exchange they use, since the prices will almost instantly equalize throughout the world.
The idea that climate change would benefit the government is terribly misguided. Governments have just as little desire to spend trillions of dollars as the general public. That's why most governments prefer to ignore the warnings of climate scientists, and have implemented very few policy changes as a result.
Water vapor increases the temperature, since it's also a greenhouse gas. You may be thinking about clouds, which have more complicated (but also smaller effect).
Despite the difficulties, we have plenty of (satellite) data to measure exactly how the the radiation from the earth has changed over the past decades.
Even though we cannot predict the chaotic day to day movements, there is no such limitation on predicting where the attractor will be. The weather will fluctuate around that attractor at a very similar range as it is doing today.
For the same reason, it is easy to predict that in New York, the average July temperature will be higher than the average January temperature, and we can predict the actual average better than we can predict the weather next week.
Of course, your system must also deal with all the pigs that are really traded, plus all the wishes of the real traders on both sides of the transaction.
Maybe the farmer would like to sell his pigs right now to pay some bills, but deliver them 3 months later, when the pigs are big enough. Similarly, a big airline may want to order some aviation fuel right now, for delivery next year, so they can already sell tickets for next year without taking the risk for sudden fuel price increases.
I've yet to see a climate model that, given the conditions at some point in the past, can predict the present.
Even the simplest models can. The only problem is the error bars are somewhat large, because year to year noise is about an order of magnitude higher than yearly increase in temperatures. Still, the error bars don't grow much, so the prediction for 2050 or 2100 are accurate enough to cause a concern.
So if they are using climate science as a basis of a policy argument, then why should their opponents not argue the science as well as the policy?
Fine, as long as you use solid scientific arguments against current understanding of AGW. Don't use politically motivated, but scientifically weak, arguments.
You can implement an efficient global trade, stock and futures market with 20 programmers ? Very impressive, but I'm afraid you underestimate the problem.
And once upon a time all scientists knew that the earth was flat
Name one of those scientists, please, and point to the publication.
If you've studied just a little bit of chaos theory you know that it is impossible to forecast weather for more than a very limited time
Luckily, climate is not weather. Average temperatures over a large area are much more reliable to predict than short-time local noise. In general, if you add more energy to the system, average temperatures will go up. It's pretty simple.
The whole climate change discussion will go the way of acid rain, ozone layer hole, acid ocean, etc.
You mean that the problem will be solved by international agreements, just as was done by reducing CFC use, low sulphur fuels, manure injection instead of spraying, and waste gas filters ?
I'm not so sure that everyone who isn't "on the AGW/ACC bandwagon" are _denying_ the science of climate study.
Agreed, but plenty of people are, and that's the group I was implicitly referring to.
Let's let the science and data develop, before we go salting the oceans
We didn't let the science and data develop before we went to release immense amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have plenty of data to have >95% confidence in the theory of AGW. Which of the many policies should be pursued is a different kind of science, and a lot of politics. Salting the oceans may be a bad idea, but reducing CO2 to earlier levels isn't going to harm anything.
The value of arbitrage is that the normal trader doesn't have to worry about price difference on both sides of the Atlantic. This lowers the risk for global trade, and keeps risk premiums down as a result.
Ask yourself the opposite: what is the disadvantage of different prices for the exact same stocks or commodities in Londen or New York ? If you can identify the disadvantages, you'll see the benefit of a trader that works to keep the prices the same.
But the notion that "the fastest takes all" is wrong. The fastest just takes a tiny profit for providing a service. The service is providing equal prices for the same trade on both sides of the Atlantic, which lowers the risk for everybody else involves in global trade.
If the fast trader wants too much profit, somebody else will also buy some of that low latency bandwidth and start competing. Since the investment to become a fast trader is pretty small, the profit margin will be driven down to very low levels. In the end, the profit settles at a reasonable price for the service provided.
There is some benefit to society. Somebody in Europe trading in stuff that is priced in the US (or the other way around) will get a better (=more accurate) price for their trade.
Of course, the difference that 6ms makes is pretty small, but as a consequence that means the profit on 6 ms arbitrage is small too.
Yes, that is a problem. On the other hand, the post WW-2 years would have been pretty bad if the money supply didn't keep up. It's not easy to come up with a system that works in all cases.
Yep, it creates money and debases it in the process
Only if you assume the underlying economy doesn't grow. Alternatively, it would be bad if the economy grew, but not enough money was created to handle the increased value. The trick is to keep both in balance.
All holding onto archaic IP and trying to sponge money off of it does is make them look like they are too damn lazy to try and do any real work to make their money.
I'm sure they don't care if you think they look lazy, while they sip from a cold drink on the deck of their new yacht.
Can you make serious money selling Rolling Stones tracks on itunes?
You can definitely make more money selling Rolling Stones on itunes than letting the same Rolling Stones tracks go into public domain. It may not be a lot of money, but if it doesn't take any effort, why not ? At the same time, they can still focus 100% on the "fresh" product.
Slashdot Mirror
The computer I bought was a laptop. I tried to install an older version of Windows on it, but that version didn't support the laptop hardware, and the manufacturer only supplied Vista drivers.
It means that the farmer has a small chance at getting a slightly better price. Suppose a farmer is trying to sell in London through his favorite broker. The farmer has no interest in setting up a brokerage account in New York as well, and keeping track of the exact pound/dollar exchange.
Now, suppose the farmer tries to sell for a certain price, and some buyer in New York is bidding for that price. Now, thanks to the fast trader he can make a deal. The trader will buy the pig in London, and sell the same pig in New York, skimming a very small profit off the trade. The farmer is happy because he made the sale for his price, and the New York buyer is happy too. Without the fast trader in the middle, the farmer would only be able to sell on the local market. With a slow trader in the middle, the farmer would get slightly worse bids. The slow trader requires a higher profit margin to compensate for higher chance of making a loss on the transaction. For instance, the trader could buy the pig in London, turn around, and notice the bid in New York is gone. Now the trader has to sell the pig at a loss to somebody else. The faster the connection, the less risk for the trader, and the better prices he can make.
Of course, the difference for the farmer may be small, but the profit for the trader is even smaller.
The problem is when your computer breaks during this interval, and the only new ones for sale come with Windows 8 pre-installed.
That happened to me with Vista.
You can find the data here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records
No station data has been removed, but some non-climatic adjustments have been made. Of course, if you don't trust that it was done correctly, you can always go back to the source: the national weather stations all over the world. Especially if you suspect any particular data has been tampered with, it's relatively easy to get the data from that particular weather station, and compare side by side.
Note that there are 3 global temperature anomaly records based on ground stations, plus two records based on satellite data. They all agree very well on the data. In addition, we can observe obvious changes, such as melting of Arctic ice and glaciers.
The idea that anybody could 'tweak' global temperature data, without anybody noticing, is just preposterous.
On the contrary, there is tons of public data available. All the data from global weather stations has been released, as well as all the source code from the software used to produce the statistics. If you think there's something wrong, go ahead. Check the data, find the flaws, and publish a paper. We'll wait.
Why is stock market gambling a bad thing ? It increases liquidity, and it doesn't really harm anybody.
If the "gambler" is able to consistently draw money out of the market, then it's not gambling, but clever use of information. For instance, fast traders often benefit from short term price differences between two places. They can make a profit by buying the cheap stock in London, and selling it for a penny more in New York. The effect of that trade is that they make a bit of profit, but also that they'll increase the stock price in London, and decrease it in New York, until the prices are the same again. As a result, regular traders benefit from a) increased liquidity, and b) knowing that they don't have to worry about the particular stock exchange they use, since the prices will almost instantly equalize throughout the world.
The idea that climate change would benefit the government is terribly misguided. Governments have just as little desire to spend trillions of dollars as the general public. That's why most governments prefer to ignore the warnings of climate scientists, and have implemented very few policy changes as a result.
Water vapor increases the temperature, since it's also a greenhouse gas. You may be thinking about clouds, which have more complicated (but also smaller effect).
Despite the difficulties, we have plenty of (satellite) data to measure exactly how the the radiation from the earth has changed over the past decades.
Of course, chaos theory also includes the notion of attractors. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Attractor
Even though we cannot predict the chaotic day to day movements, there is no such limitation on predicting where the attractor will be. The weather will fluctuate around that attractor at a very similar range as it is doing today.
For the same reason, it is easy to predict that in New York, the average July temperature will be higher than the average January temperature, and we can predict the actual average better than we can predict the weather next week.
Of course, your system must also deal with all the pigs that are really traded, plus all the wishes of the real traders on both sides of the transaction.
Maybe the farmer would like to sell his pigs right now to pay some bills, but deliver them 3 months later, when the pigs are big enough. Similarly, a big airline may want to order some aviation fuel right now, for delivery next year, so they can already sell tickets for next year without taking the risk for sudden fuel price increases.
Even the simplest models can. The only problem is the error bars are somewhat large, because year to year noise is about an order of magnitude higher than yearly increase in temperatures. Still, the error bars don't grow much, so the prediction for 2050 or 2100 are accurate enough to cause a concern.
Fine, as long as you use solid scientific arguments against current understanding of AGW. Don't use politically motivated, but scientifically weak, arguments.
You can implement an efficient global trade, stock and futures market with 20 programmers ? Very impressive, but I'm afraid you underestimate the problem.
Name one of those scientists, please, and point to the publication.
Luckily, climate is not weather. Average temperatures over a large area are much more reliable to predict than short-time local noise. In general, if you add more energy to the system, average temperatures will go up. It's pretty simple.
You mean that the problem will be solved by international agreements, just as was done by reducing CFC use, low sulphur fuels, manure injection instead of spraying, and waste gas filters ?
Agreed, but plenty of people are, and that's the group I was implicitly referring to.
We didn't let the science and data develop before we went to release immense amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have plenty of data to have >95% confidence in the theory of AGW. Which of the many policies should be pursued is a different kind of science, and a lot of politics. Salting the oceans may be a bad idea, but reducing CO2 to earlier levels isn't going to harm anything.
There's no value in global trade, and a market to trade it on ?
If you agree there's value in that, you must agree there's value in doing it efficiently. Arbitrage helps to increase efficiency of the market.
The value of arbitrage is that the normal trader doesn't have to worry about price difference on both sides of the Atlantic.
This lowers the risk for global trade, and keeps risk premiums down as a result.
Ask yourself the opposite: what is the disadvantage of different prices for the exact same stocks or commodities in Londen or New York ? If you can identify the disadvantages, you'll see the benefit of a trader that works to keep the prices the same.
Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to attack the policy and politicians, rather than deny the science ?
But the notion that "the fastest takes all" is wrong. The fastest just takes a tiny profit for providing a service. The service is providing equal prices for the same trade on both sides of the Atlantic, which lowers the risk for everybody else involves in global trade.
If the fast trader wants too much profit, somebody else will also buy some of that low latency bandwidth and start competing. Since the investment to become a fast trader is pretty small, the profit margin will be driven down to very low levels. In the end, the profit settles at a reasonable price for the service provided.
There is some benefit to society. Somebody in Europe trading in stuff that is priced in the US (or the other way around) will get a better (=more accurate) price for their trade.
Of course, the difference that 6ms makes is pretty small, but as a consequence that means the profit on 6 ms arbitrage is small too.
Yes, that is a problem. On the other hand, the post WW-2 years would have been pretty bad if the money supply didn't keep up. It's not easy to come up with a system that works in all cases.
Only if you assume the underlying economy doesn't grow. Alternatively, it would be bad if the economy grew, but not enough money was created to handle the increased value. The trick is to keep both in balance.
I'm sure they don't care if you think they look lazy, while they sip from a cold drink on the deck of their new yacht.
You can definitely make more money selling Rolling Stones on itunes than letting the same Rolling Stones tracks go into public domain. It may not be a lot of money, but if it doesn't take any effort, why not ? At the same time, they can still focus 100% on the "fresh" product.
The point is to make more money, and they succeeded.