However the level of Liberal Arts stuff that is required is substantially more for the "math and science" crowd than the reverse is. I know people who go through 8 years of college and don't know how to math (sic) even simple things.
I disagree. For example, I have never heard of an engineer, scientist or any other educated person that could explain, WTF "postmodernism" is.
But to start anew imitating the different mode from 1970s teletypes with only 300 broad connections
300 baud
in 2012 is strange which is why vim has editing modes.
Connection speed has nothing to do with this. The original vi has insert and editing modes because it has to be usable on a terminal with any keyboard layout, and to allow one-keystroke switch between command and editing modes.
But ide's and other tools have things like debuggers and other tools you can use integrated in, in a more modern sense. Of course emacs users claim they have that.
Developers must keep themselves as far from debugger as possible, and anything that makes running a debugger difficult, is an improvement as far as development environment is concerned.
But it is a bunch of macros in lisp to cli tools like gnu db.
That's probably because you are either stupid, or believe that the purpose of the stock market is to let financial companies fleece the rest of society.
We're talking about undetstanding mechanisms, here. That TV set would run on magic or just theory until that man understood what radio is.
That's a strawman. There is no need to understand the details of how exactly the images are encoded, to answer a much more importan question, where they are originated, and what physical phenomena (or magic, if any) are involved in getting them displayed on the TV screen.
If you don't understand the difference, you are either incredibly stupid, or intentionally trying to support a point of view that you know to be invalid.
Incidentally, you should learn the difference between 'know' and 'study' before you run around calling anybody stupid.
I am well aware of what those words mean. You, on the other hand, make idiotic claims that unless one can present knowledge about each an every detail of a complex process, it is perfectly fine to claim that something completely different is taking place, despite having no knowledge of it whatsoever, or presenting a reason for such outrageous claims.
I know it wasn't intentional, but it sure was effective.
As I said before, you are trying to defend a known-invalid claim by attacking a strawman and moving goalposts of what you believe, should be considered to be a proof, knowledge, or everything else. While, indeed, effective when arguing in front of ignorant and stupid audience, it demonstrated nothing but your love for cheap sophistry.
Exchanges could provide a service of inter-exchange trading all by themselves. They could add time dithering for quotes and orders execution. They could have built-in mechanism for prevention of transactions at clearly outlying prices unless participants asked them not to do it to their orders. They could cancel orders that DoS the system. They could do everything useful that HFT supposedly do, and just FUCKING CHARGE EVERYONE FOR IT instead of letting random crooks do all that plus (and mostly) market manipulation and freeloading under the guise of trading.
But that's Disney purposefully manipulating things, still with intention to sell their movies.
Most of the time companies either never ever release their movies and TV series in a usable format, or do it so late, people forget what those things were about. The effect on the company is the opposite -- Disney probably makes more money by behaving unethically (they do it to products with lasting popularity, creating the impression of rarity, and everyone who is interested still ends up buying), those companies make less money by behaving unethically (unless they have an instant cult classic, popularity wanes when there is no way to watch those things -- they even lose money on TV ads and TV/movie franchises).
HFT has unquestionably been a boon to the economy.
The only reason for HFT to exist is that exchanges do not implement their own mechanism for some forms of automatic regulation. HFT "kinda" performs that function, except it also siphons money away from everything productive, and gives those traders power to control the market and keep it hostage.
In other words, they are "boon to the economy" in the same way as mobsters were.
Where in the world did that accusation come from? Are you going to think about this or just continue to make bizarre accusations of crime?
While not formally illegal, high frequency trading is a form of freeloading off the market, and its capability to trigger a market crash makes it harmful for the economy, so analogy with robbery and arson is perfectly valid.
I'd say it's more like a panicked crowd in a theater. Whether or not, there's a reason for the panic (and it can happen whether or not the theater crowd is doing anything illegal or not), bad things (such as trampling and other injury) can happen merely if the crowd can't move fast enough (say the exits are too small for them to move through quickly).
Again, this completely misses the point -- there wouldn't be a panicked crowd if there weren't people artificially causing volatility for no reason other than to enrich themselves by manipulating the market.
Well, give a real example then where it's not true then.
A company that in any way participates or is expected to participate in a merger. What is now any company in any industry where any kind of competition left, as merger is the preferred exit strategy for everyone now. A company that is likely to suffer in a merger (or lack of one) is usually even abandoned by customers in anticipation of abandonment of product lines.
Yes, I do, as I would rather prefer not to have to go through switching to running Compiz with other environments, what is now painful in all of them, and was very easy under GNOME 2.
What brings a question, how would CDE look with Compiz instead of Motif Window Manager (and would my eyes bleed from such a sight)?
A reasonably intelligent person would not expect everyone to guess the same context, because he considers the possibility that the listener may be aware of multiple plausibly applicable contexts.
An idiot, on the other hand, would expect that everyone is just as ignorant about possible other meanings of the acronyms as he is.
This is stupid, and you are stupid for making such a stupid statement.
Most knowledge is completely unrelated to being able to reproduce the phenomenon that is being studied. It's very unlikely that anyone will produce, say, a new galaxy, however this does not prevent astrophysicists from studying them.
There are well documented cases of very large arbitrage opportunities that go untaken because the market can't respond to a crash fast enough (for example, the Black Monday crash of 1987). Raw market speed won't in itself be enough to compensate since the problem is really that the arbitragers run out of capital to invest, but it does help to move capital around faster in response to crashes.
So your argument is, it's a pity that robbers can't loot and pillage enough because they have already set the house on fire?
Not at all. Volatility of stock price doesn't do much to a company.
In ideal world (a kind of ideal world where Ayn Rand makes sense), this is true. In reality -- not so much.
Yes, it is. People just seem to create a new name for it every 20-40 years, because people who worked on the old one shift to practical applications of the most trivial forms of it, and CS is too uncool for anyone outside of CS to listen to.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also always a possibility that his advisor is a troll.
Care to explain why developers should be as far away from a debugger as possible?
A summary of what developer uses debugger for:
"I just wrote something that I can't understand myself, can you give me an example of how it works?"
That, or reverse engineering someone else's code. What should be extremely rare and only necessary if no usable documentation is available.
For argument's sake, how do you distinguish a lie from a work of fiction? Do you wish to make storytelling illegal?
You are either incredibly stupid or incredbly dishonest. In either case, please kill all your friends, then yourself.
However the level of Liberal Arts stuff that is required is substantially more for the "math and science" crowd than the reverse is. I know people who go through 8 years of college and don't know how to math (sic) even simple things.
I disagree. For example, I have never heard of an engineer, scientist or any other educated person that could explain, WTF "postmodernism" is.
But we've had 3 nailed for quite some time now.
Politicians did it long before the dotcom boom and the birth of the 1990's VB programmer.
But to start anew imitating the different mode from 1970s teletypes with only 300 broad connections
300 baud
in 2012 is strange which is why vim has editing modes.
Connection speed has nothing to do with this. The original vi has insert and editing modes because it has to be usable on a terminal with any keyboard layout, and to allow one-keystroke switch between command and editing modes.
But ide's and other tools have things like debuggers and other tools you can use integrated in, in a more modern sense. Of course emacs users claim they have that.
Developers must keep themselves as far from debugger as possible, and anything that makes running a debugger difficult, is an improvement as far as development environment is concerned.
But it is a bunch of macros in lisp to cli tools like gnu db.
It's called "modularity".
That's probably because you are either stupid, or believe that the purpose of the stock market is to let financial companies fleece the rest of society.
Remember when democracy was supposed to give us options?
No.
We're talking about undetstanding mechanisms, here. That TV set would run on magic or just theory until that man understood what radio is.
That's a strawman. There is no need to understand the details of how exactly the images are encoded, to answer a much more importan question, where they are originated, and what physical phenomena (or magic, if any) are involved in getting them displayed on the TV screen.
If you don't understand the difference, you are either incredibly stupid, or intentionally trying to support a point of view that you know to be invalid.
Incidentally, you should learn the difference between 'know' and 'study' before you run around calling anybody stupid.
I am well aware of what those words mean. You, on the other hand, make idiotic claims that unless one can present knowledge about each an every detail of a complex process, it is perfectly fine to claim that something completely different is taking place, despite having no knowledge of it whatsoever, or presenting a reason for such outrageous claims.
I know it wasn't intentional, but it sure was effective.
As I said before, you are trying to defend a known-invalid claim by attacking a strawman and moving goalposts of what you believe, should be considered to be a proof, knowledge, or everything else. While, indeed, effective when arguing in front of ignorant and stupid audience, it demonstrated nothing but your love for cheap sophistry.
So you mean, all other benefits that HFT claims to produce, are of no value?
Oh, I see, things are of no value unless they can be used to make unproductive rich people richer at everyone else's expense.
lrn2modularity, retards!
I an sure, they allow foreign members as long as they troll Americans, and what kind of gay nigger would miss a chance to troll some Americans?
And what's the point of "automatic regulation"?
Exchanges could provide a service of inter-exchange trading all by themselves. They could add time dithering for quotes and orders execution. They could have built-in mechanism for prevention of transactions at clearly outlying prices unless participants asked them not to do it to their orders. They could cancel orders that DoS the system. They could do everything useful that HFT supposedly do, and just FUCKING CHARGE EVERYONE FOR IT instead of letting random crooks do all that plus (and mostly) market manipulation and freeloading under the guise of trading.
But that's Disney purposefully manipulating things, still with intention to sell their movies.
Most of the time companies either never ever release their movies and TV series in a usable format, or do it so late, people forget what those things were about. The effect on the company is the opposite -- Disney probably makes more money by behaving unethically (they do it to products with lasting popularity, creating the impression of rarity, and everyone who is interested still ends up buying), those companies make less money by behaving unethically (unless they have an instant cult classic, popularity wanes when there is no way to watch those things -- they even lose money on TV ads and TV/movie franchises).
HFT has unquestionably been a boon to the economy.
The only reason for HFT to exist is that exchanges do not implement their own mechanism for some forms of automatic regulation. HFT "kinda" performs that function, except it also siphons money away from everything productive, and gives those traders power to control the market and keep it hostage.
In other words, they are "boon to the economy" in the same way as mobsters were.
You have never seen Compiz right?
Where in the world did that accusation come from? Are you going to think about this or just continue to make bizarre accusations of crime?
While not formally illegal, high frequency trading is a form of freeloading off the market, and its capability to trigger a market crash makes it harmful for the economy, so analogy with robbery and arson is perfectly valid.
I'd say it's more like a panicked crowd in a theater. Whether or not, there's a reason for the panic (and it can happen whether or not the theater crowd is doing anything illegal or not), bad things (such as trampling and other injury) can happen merely if the crowd can't move fast enough (say the exits are too small for them to move through quickly).
Again, this completely misses the point -- there wouldn't be a panicked crowd if there weren't people artificially causing volatility for no reason other than to enrich themselves by manipulating the market.
Well, give a real example then where it's not true then.
A company that in any way participates or is expected to participate in a merger. What is now any company in any industry where any kind of competition left, as merger is the preferred exit strategy for everyone now. A company that is likely to suffer in a merger (or lack of one) is usually even abandoned by customers in anticipation of abandonment of product lines.
Yes, I do, as I would rather prefer not to have to go through switching to running Compiz with other environments, what is now painful in all of them, and was very easy under GNOME 2.
What brings a question, how would CDE look with Compiz instead of Motif Window Manager (and would my eyes bleed from such a sight)?
lol wut
I really hate to say it, but CDE, the clunkiest desktop environment in the history of computing, is still better than GNOME 3.
A reasonably intelligent person would not expect everyone to guess the same context, because he considers the possibility that the listener may be aware of multiple plausibly applicable contexts.
An idiot, on the other hand, would expect that everyone is just as ignorant about possible other meanings of the acronyms as he is.
This is stupid, and you are stupid for making such a stupid statement.
Most knowledge is completely unrelated to being able to reproduce the phenomenon that is being studied. It's very unlikely that anyone will produce, say, a new galaxy, however this does not prevent astrophysicists from studying them.
There are well documented cases of very large arbitrage opportunities that go untaken because the market can't respond to a crash fast enough (for example, the Black Monday crash of 1987). Raw market speed won't in itself be enough to compensate since the problem is really that the arbitragers run out of capital to invest, but it does help to move capital around faster in response to crashes.
So your argument is, it's a pity that robbers can't loot and pillage enough because they have already set the house on fire?
Not at all. Volatility of stock price doesn't do much to a company.
In ideal world (a kind of ideal world where Ayn Rand makes sense), this is true. In reality -- not so much.
Define "mind", and you will be trivially able to answer that question.
Yes, it is. People just seem to create a new name for it every 20-40 years, because people who worked on the old one shift to practical applications of the most trivial forms of it, and CS is too uncool for anyone outside of CS to listen to.