The price of replacing things may be getting cheaper faster than the implied cost of the risk of not replacing it is going up. It may be cheaper to wait until it breaks than to buy something with a rapidly depreciating value. The extra cost of dealing with an emergency may be paid for by the lower cost of the gear and labor. And for those risk events that never happen, the ratio of preventative replacement cost to emergency replacement cost will be infinite.
Only your CIO knows for sure. But I bet he's planning it this way.
The hardest part of that is scoring and selecting the hits you get from the skein of database queries you make from the keywords in the clue.
If you want to do something impressive, make it learn what it knows the same way Jeopardy contestants did: by reading books and organizing the data within them in content-addressable memory.
I'm not talking about taking machines out of the process of making your transaction easier.
I'm talking about taking machines out of the process of deciding to make transactions.
And no machine can "experience the same dynamical forces as a human trader". Human beings have insight outside the limits of the program the machine uses. No machine can do anything volitional until a human being tells it to. So the machine is just something doing the same thing a billion times, instead of a human making a human decision a billion times.
As for your "solutions": a) margin is irrelevant, and should be avoided even in human-only markets if you're skittish about amplifying risk; b) if you never make market trades you separate yourself from immediacy, which is an exploitable inefficiency in your strategy; c) is in conflict with b, since a stop is just a limit trade which is the opposite of a market trade so if you shouldn't do market sales or limit sales you'll never sell, ever. None of these speak to the central problem, which is that the idea that machine-driven trading creates liquidity and improves the market's accuracy is a fallacy. Machine-driven trading is just as likely to create scarcity and more likely to create false attractors for the price, creating inaccurate valuations for the thing on which the trading vehicle is based. The idea that making trading easier is more important than determining valuation accurately is also a fallacy. But since trading shares generates commissions, and holding onto shares for value does not, the people whose income is based on commissions will always argue for more trading. It's up to the people who want things valued accurately to tell them to shut up and do the jobs they have properly instead of cadging for more busy-work with no productive value.
And, as usual, "I merely wish it to work when I use it" ignores the effects of the mechanization.
A system made from human beings can* adapt to your requirements for "just work", while machines will force you to conform to their conventions.
In this case, the machines are not making an efficient market. They are trading according to their own rules, far more often than the human who created those rules could do it himself, and with no reflection at each iteration as to whether it's the right thing to do given the outcome of the last iteration. When several such machines are operating at the same time under differing sets of canned rules, the "market" no longer reflects human valuation but a mechanical equilibrium. When you enter your trade, it is not at the value of the item but at the value to which the enumeration of that price has been pulled by the system dynamics of the computers that are ruling the input streams. I.e., when you sell into a computer-driven flash-crash, you're getting fucked by a mechanism, not participating in a market.
That's the opposite of what markets are supposed to be.
* - not that they all do, but this is because of management policies that make the worker-humans work like machines, according to preset rules that make no sense when user-human expectations are pushed into the input hopper.
In other words, computers are perfectly capable of putting every stock on the market into the rail, and it's the human traders who are keeping market value anywhere within praying distance of the actual value of the thing being traded.
10 years ago, DSL was 256 kbps, though my home line only tested at 32 kbps so I had to use alternatives (Metricom/Ricochet, SpeedChoice, satellite, cable, etc, tried them all, currently getting 30 mbps on the cable). Now the phone company says they can deliver 7 mbps over my phone line. But they haven't dug up so much as a meter of the streets or replaced so much as a mile of cable in my city in that time (the corporation commission can confirm that). What changed? Physics? Or their willingness to put a few $100 routers at the CO nearest me?
FPGAs can be programmed to emulate any logic hardware (logically, though not usually electrically, so power and timing will not be accurate though the logical results will be identical). Many CPU cores have been rendered as library modules that can be programmed into an FPGA. Put 1,000 of them in your FPGA (or big array of FPGAs in this case) and route them together, and you can claim you have a 1,000-core CPU.
Of course, it takes more than one FPGA chip to do this, so you can't in any sense claim a 1,000-core chip, just another 1,000-core system, albeit one that accurately emulates the wiring on a 1,000-core chip.
You're not going to get to orbit on a railgun. You might reach outer space, but you're going to lack angular momentum. You need something to give you that. An oblique shot won't do it. Far more atmosphere to clear that way. And at orbital speeds plus the speed you'll lose to drag, friction heating will vaporize anything you try to use as a shield. If you plan for that and use enough ablative shielding, you've just added huge weight to your vehicle. That weight might as well be a booster rocket. So use a booster rocket and leave the railgun out of it.
The Internet that the site is using to deliver its storefront for free was funded by me, as is the last mile. If I choose to listen to only half of what they're saying, then that's the way they'll have to take it.
Think of it this way: you're not studding your universal remote in diamonds, you're enabling your diamonds as a universal remote.
Diamonds have no real value, but people pay a fortune for them. DeBeers held a monopoly on them until the Canadian kimberlite miners told them to fuck off and started dumping rocks on the market. Did the prices drop? Nope.
People are dumb. Supply and Demand is a crock of shit. And I bet those speakers sound terrible.
But it kind of does. Trickle-down is a myth. Making jobs for one construction crew is nothing economically compared with putting 40 crews to work with the same outlay.
if you're not a US citizen, nor are you in US territory, US laws are irrelevant to you.
That is incorrect. As I pointed out, the US can request that Assange be extradited. And the country he's in at that time may decide to honor the request. Doesn't matter where Assange is a citizen or where he committed the crime.
Most countries won't go along with random requests for extradition for laws that don't fit their own view of right and wrong. But something like what Assange did? Basically waging war against the U.S.? Many countries will see that as a bad thing to let go unpunished, or at least un-adjudicated, and some of those would seriously consider delivering him up, and of those the ones with something to gain diplomatically (especially if the State Department is dangling a fresh carrot) will bag him and toss him on the plane.
I don't know australian laws, but your claim is too broad... Do you know which laws specifically he broke?
Yes. I looked up the Australian equivalent of the US Code when all this first went around a few months ago. I don't have the paragraph number, but it's there. They have an official secrets act and it includes language that makes it illegal to conduct espionage against Australia's allies. The ANZUS treaty makes the US Australia's ally. So the only question is if they consider what Assange did to be espionage. I do. Deliberately releasing someone's secrets is plainly espionage.
The perfect timing and the way the investigation happened in Sweden so far makes that very suspicious.
No "perfect timing" about it. Assange went to Sweden to hide from the US and others. He was making the newspapers and all the TV news reports. Fame is a powerful attractant; ask any fugly rock star. Assange hooked up with a couple of girls who were in the circle of people he was hanging out with. He (as corroborated by the leaked police documents) did them wrong in a number of ways, and they decided to take action.
The fact is, no intelligence agency would do something this lame. They have him for the document releases. Getting him popped for mistreating women just slows down the process of dealing on him for that. If they wanted to go extralegal, they'd just disappear him and spread "evidence" that he was hiding in Pakistan with bin Laden and had been in his employ the whole time.
His reaction to it is pathetic as well. He's playing up his persecution complex over his job failure as a cover for his culpability for his social failure. And his own organization wants to fire him over it.
Er, not quite sure I follow. That line I quoted is from the Constitution and it is the one that allows the Congress to set up the Patent Office to that thing there with the writings and discoveries and authors and inventors and science and arts...
I wonder if anyone ever challenged a copyright on the basis that the work of art it purported to protect was not "useful"...
No you're supposed to do it for a share of a dinette set plus the personal satisfaction you get from solving problems and the prestige and recognition of being the guy who beat everyone else at doing it.
I get all that anyway, but I deserve $150K, not a fucking dinette set.
Fyi, people actually pay for the opportunity to compete in triathlons, and most of them aren't even expecting to win. The ones who do don't receive much in the way of compensation for the time they've invested in it. And yet hundreds of people still show up to do it.
That's nice for them. But the people who win make MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS doing it and rarely have to pay their own entry fee, besides.
If you're not in the spirit of the game then it may not seem very equitable to you, but good news! It's 100% voluntary, so no need for you to worry about it.
It's not 100% voluntary. The government is sucking the value of innovation out of the economy by paying in dinette sets instead of what it's worth.
Slashdot Mirror
I think F16 pilots would offer a different opinion.
Until they realize this thing is always either behind them or disappearing into the sun...
The price of replacing things may be getting cheaper faster than the implied cost of the risk of not replacing it is going up. It may be cheaper to wait until it breaks than to buy something with a rapidly depreciating value. The extra cost of dealing with an emergency may be paid for by the lower cost of the gear and labor. And for those risk events that never happen, the ratio of preventative replacement cost to emergency replacement cost will be infinite.
Only your CIO knows for sure. But I bet he's planning it this way.
The hardest part of that is scoring and selecting the hits you get from the skein of database queries you make from the keywords in the clue.
If you want to do something impressive, make it learn what it knows the same way Jeopardy contestants did: by reading books and organizing the data within them in content-addressable memory.
You think they pay me to post to /.?
No, they pay me to save their asses every couple of weeks.
Microsoft issued me a Passport in about 1995.
It gets me into everything...that Microsoft controls that links up with it. Which is to say, a lot of stuff I haven't logged into since about 1995.
I'm not talking about taking machines out of the process of making your transaction easier.
I'm talking about taking machines out of the process of deciding to make transactions.
And no machine can "experience the same dynamical forces as a human trader". Human beings have insight outside the limits of the program the machine uses. No machine can do anything volitional until a human being tells it to. So the machine is just something doing the same thing a billion times, instead of a human making a human decision a billion times.
As for your "solutions": a) margin is irrelevant, and should be avoided even in human-only markets if you're skittish about amplifying risk; b) if you never make market trades you separate yourself from immediacy, which is an exploitable inefficiency in your strategy; c) is in conflict with b, since a stop is just a limit trade which is the opposite of a market trade so if you shouldn't do market sales or limit sales you'll never sell, ever. None of these speak to the central problem, which is that the idea that machine-driven trading creates liquidity and improves the market's accuracy is a fallacy. Machine-driven trading is just as likely to create scarcity and more likely to create false attractors for the price, creating inaccurate valuations for the thing on which the trading vehicle is based. The idea that making trading easier is more important than determining valuation accurately is also a fallacy. But since trading shares generates commissions, and holding onto shares for value does not, the people whose income is based on commissions will always argue for more trading. It's up to the people who want things valued accurately to tell them to shut up and do the jobs they have properly instead of cadging for more busy-work with no productive value.
And, as usual, "I merely wish it to work when I use it" ignores the effects of the mechanization.
A system made from human beings can* adapt to your requirements for "just work", while machines will force you to conform to their conventions.
In this case, the machines are not making an efficient market. They are trading according to their own rules, far more often than the human who created those rules could do it himself, and with no reflection at each iteration as to whether it's the right thing to do given the outcome of the last iteration. When several such machines are operating at the same time under differing sets of canned rules, the "market" no longer reflects human valuation but a mechanical equilibrium. When you enter your trade, it is not at the value of the item but at the value to which the enumeration of that price has been pulled by the system dynamics of the computers that are ruling the input streams. I.e., when you sell into a computer-driven flash-crash, you're getting fucked by a mechanism, not participating in a market.
That's the opposite of what markets are supposed to be.
* - not that they all do, but this is because of management policies that make the worker-humans work like machines, according to preset rules that make no sense when user-human expectations are pushed into the input hopper.
When the machines are making 10,000 trades a second, you have no way at all ever to complain about a lack of liquidity.
In other words, computers are perfectly capable of putting every stock on the market into the rail, and it's the human traders who are keeping market value anywhere within praying distance of the actual value of the thing being traded.
Convince an HFT program of that.
These "magazines" are like someone trying to sell bottled water that that tastes like urine -- inferior to the free version.
Oh, so you've been to Starbucks...
If Rovio decided to start an Angry Birds magazine right now, it'd out-sell Wired 3 to 1.
“Markets are there for capital formation and long-term investment, not for gaming,” [Michael Durbin] says here
Amen to that. The markets should operate as though there are humans at every step. Otherwise there's no need for humans on the edges, either.
10 years ago, DSL was 256 kbps, though my home line only tested at 32 kbps so I had to use alternatives (Metricom/Ricochet, SpeedChoice, satellite, cable, etc, tried them all, currently getting 30 mbps on the cable). Now the phone company says they can deliver 7 mbps over my phone line. But they haven't dug up so much as a meter of the streets or replaced so much as a mile of cable in my city in that time (the corporation commission can confirm that). What changed? Physics? Or their willingness to put a few $100 routers at the CO nearest me?
For that you need a 1001-cpu chip.
FPGAs can be programmed to emulate any logic hardware (logically, though not usually electrically, so power and timing will not be accurate though the logical results will be identical). Many CPU cores have been rendered as library modules that can be programmed into an FPGA. Put 1,000 of them in your FPGA (or big array of FPGAs in this case) and route them together, and you can claim you have a 1,000-core CPU.
Of course, it takes more than one FPGA chip to do this, so you can't in any sense claim a 1,000-core chip, just another 1,000-core system, albeit one that accurately emulates the wiring on a 1,000-core chip.
And 40 families working forever is not better than 1 family working forever exactly how?
You're not going to get to orbit on a railgun. You might reach outer space, but you're going to lack angular momentum. You need something to give you that. An oblique shot won't do it. Far more atmosphere to clear that way. And at orbital speeds plus the speed you'll lose to drag, friction heating will vaporize anything you try to use as a shield. If you plan for that and use enough ablative shielding, you've just added huge weight to your vehicle. That weight might as well be a booster rocket. So use a booster rocket and leave the railgun out of it.
If a site is funded by adverts
The Internet that the site is using to deliver its storefront for free was funded by me, as is the last mile. If I choose to listen to only half of what they're saying, then that's the way they'll have to take it.
Think of it this way: you're not studding your universal remote in diamonds, you're enabling your diamonds as a universal remote.
Diamonds have no real value, but people pay a fortune for them. DeBeers held a monopoly on them until the Canadian kimberlite miners told them to fuck off and started dumping rocks on the market. Did the prices drop? Nope.
People are dumb. Supply and Demand is a crock of shit. And I bet those speakers sound terrible.
the rural parts of Florida's panhandle, where the Great Depression is still in full swing
FTFY
But it kind of does. Trickle-down is a myth. Making jobs for one construction crew is nothing economically compared with putting 40 crews to work with the same outlay.
if you're not a US citizen, nor are you in US territory, US laws are irrelevant to you.
That is incorrect. As I pointed out, the US can request that Assange be extradited. And the country he's in at that time may decide to honor the request. Doesn't matter where Assange is a citizen or where he committed the crime.
Most countries won't go along with random requests for extradition for laws that don't fit their own view of right and wrong. But something like what Assange did? Basically waging war against the U.S.? Many countries will see that as a bad thing to let go unpunished, or at least un-adjudicated, and some of those would seriously consider delivering him up, and of those the ones with something to gain diplomatically (especially if the State Department is dangling a fresh carrot) will bag him and toss him on the plane.
I don't know australian laws, but your claim is too broad... Do you know which laws specifically he broke?
Yes. I looked up the Australian equivalent of the US Code when all this first went around a few months ago. I don't have the paragraph number, but it's there. They have an official secrets act and it includes language that makes it illegal to conduct espionage against Australia's allies. The ANZUS treaty makes the US Australia's ally. So the only question is if they consider what Assange did to be espionage. I do. Deliberately releasing someone's secrets is plainly espionage.
The perfect timing and the way the investigation happened in Sweden so far makes that very suspicious.
No "perfect timing" about it. Assange went to Sweden to hide from the US and others. He was making the newspapers and all the TV news reports. Fame is a powerful attractant; ask any fugly rock star. Assange hooked up with a couple of girls who were in the circle of people he was hanging out with. He (as corroborated by the leaked police documents) did them wrong in a number of ways, and they decided to take action.
The fact is, no intelligence agency would do something this lame. They have him for the document releases. Getting him popped for mistreating women just slows down the process of dealing on him for that. If they wanted to go extralegal, they'd just disappear him and spread "evidence" that he was hiding in Pakistan with bin Laden and had been in his employ the whole time.
His reaction to it is pathetic as well. He's playing up his persecution complex over his job failure as a cover for his culpability for his social failure. And his own organization wants to fire him over it.
Er, not quite sure I follow. That line I quoted is from the Constitution and it is the one that allows the Congress to set up the Patent Office to that thing there with the writings and discoveries and authors and inventors and science and arts...
I wonder if anyone ever challenged a copyright on the basis that the work of art it purported to protect was not "useful"...
No you're supposed to do it for a share of a dinette set plus the personal satisfaction you get from solving problems and the prestige and recognition of being the guy who beat everyone else at doing it.
I get all that anyway, but I deserve $150K, not a fucking dinette set.
Fyi, people actually pay for the opportunity to compete in triathlons, and most of them aren't even expecting to win. The ones who do don't receive much in the way of compensation for the time they've invested in it. And yet hundreds of people still show up to do it.
That's nice for them. But the people who win make MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS doing it and rarely have to pay their own entry fee, besides.
If you're not in the spirit of the game then it may not seem very equitable to you, but good news! It's 100% voluntary, so no need for you to worry about it.
It's not 100% voluntary. The government is sucking the value of innovation out of the economy by paying in dinette sets instead of what it's worth.