Both the DOJ case and the civil case were resolved by settlement.
And the reason the companies were quick to settle was that a protracted lawsuit would have been expensive and bad PR, not because the lawsuits were justified.
It is far from clear that what they were doing was actually illegal. After all, they didn't have "no hire" agreements, but rather just a "no cold call" agreement.
"In order to maintain a good working relationship with these companies, in 2005 we decided not to "cold call" employees at a few of our partner companies. Our policy only impacted cold calling, and we continued to recruit from these companies through LinkedIn, job fairs, employee referrals, or when candidates approached Google directly. In fact, we hired hundreds of employees from the companies involved during this time period."
This guy played a part in keeping IT workers' salaries down because Google and Apple do not want to pay for what their talent is actually worth to them.
There is no basis for those statements. Apple and Google pay quite well, and there are thousands of other companies in Silicon Valley where people can work (and that pay even better than either). And the reason companies like Apple and Google do this is not to keep salaries down, it is to avoid disrupting their teams and deadlines.
I don't know about you AC, but I would not want somebody working for me that had been involved in that breach of ethics.
I don't consider it a breach of ethics, and probably lots of other people don't either.
AFAIK, all that existed was a "no poaching" agreement; that is, the companies agreed not to cold-call each others' employees. Plenty of people have moved between Apple and Google.
Twitter has been taken over by public relations firms, minor celebrities, and social justice warriors. Besides simple trolling, insults, and social signaling, its contents consist largely of republished headlines and self promotion. People aren't interesting in having that bullshit pushed on them in 160 character chunks, and they are certainly not going to pay for it. That's why Twitter is pretty much doomed.
researchers suggest that our experience of the Internet is the product of a delicate balance of voltage around 120V—too much or too little and the Internet slips away
Actually, the number of quota refugees for Finland is about 1000, and the number of actual refugees is about 15000. Yes, firing 1000 well paid university staff probably actually amounts to paying for a large fraction of Finland's share of the Syrian refugees.
Wall Street has over a hundred years of history producing melt downs just 6 years after deregulation. It's as regular and predictable as clockwork.
The stock market has been highly regulated since the progressive era; "deregulation" is a misnomer, and simply refers to crony capitalist handouts to Wall Street, not an actual removal of significant regulations.
Furthermore, the market is a random walk, so yes, big market drops are fairly regular. That's a good thing too.
I think what would be better to say is that market price itself is used as information for future speculation.
Of course, people use past information for predicting the future, how is that in any way remarkable, or a problem?
In such a scenario a short delay can mean sharp, large swings.
Obviously, if you trade ten times as fast, your market moves ten times as fast. But you claimed that the swings don't just get faster, they also get bigger in magnitude than they would for a slower moving market.
So if automated HFT was so great, why does the NYSE limit it when it looks to start running amok?
Why does the NYSE do anything? To make money for themselves and for the people they are in bed with. They certainly don't do it to help you or me.
When HFT produces large swings, most likely someone screwed up on their HFT algorithm. That's a good thing for anybody not using HFT (i.e., you and me). It absolutely sucks for the people making those trades.
but having a few actors with the ability to trade and manipulate prices while normal traders have no clue or visibility on what is going on
Yes, and why is that? Because governmental financial regulations make it next to impossible to create new markets in securities (or any other kinds of financial services). That is, the primary effect of those financial regulations that ostensibly exist to "protect" us is to create government mandated monopolies. It is no wonder that people like Hillary are in bed with Wall Street.
The fact that these government-created monopolies happen to use high frequency trading is pretty much irrelevant; before HFT, they'd just charge vastly inflated prices for trades. One way or another, they get their monopoly rents.
Unfortunately, "market" price does not mean what it sounds like (ie, the value of something _right now_); it includes future speculation.
Predictions about future returns are part of "the value of something right now", so your distinction makes no sense.
This introduces a positive feedback into the system
No, it doesn't. It introduces delays and dependencies on the future, but people make both kinds of errors on stocks.
with a time constant related to the delay in trading action. So the random non-trivial delay in trading that humans provides is good for preventing huge swings. The faster the trading, the worse the swings will get.
In fact, the opposite is true mathematically: longer delays tend to produce bigger swings, for the simple reason that a system can go off the rails longer before the market corrects it.
But there's an even more basic error in your reasoning, namely the assumption that market swings are bad or that we should adopt policies to reduce them.
british empire. destroyed whole cultures and lot was lost as result. is that a service to humanity?
Yes, that was a service to humanity: most human cultures are simply not worth preserving. The Roman empire destroyed the culture of my ancestors, and I'm glad they did.
i object to attempt at whitewashing horrors of this particular regime in wikipedia. why do you support it?
I disagree with the premise. Wikipedia lists the actions of all those regimes, including the British Empire, so the charge of "whitewashing" doesn't hold.
criminal racists do love historicism.
And criminal fascists and nationalists yearn back for the lost cultures of their ancestors. The Nazis built an entire totalitarian regime on political yearnings like yours.
and they love censorship
Wikipedia is a private effort, and it is popular because people find it useful. If you don't like what it says, start your own effort. There are a whole bunch of alternative 'pedias like that.
You said there are no experiments you can run to verify the first law of thermodynamics and you don't typically graduate high school without being shown examples of this.
You can't ever "verify" physical laws, all you can do is fail to falsify them experimentally. What those high school experiments did was "fail to falsify" the laws of thermodynamics under the conditions that existed at your high school (which presumably lacked black holes or bubble universes).
I was actually talking about the second law, not the first law. But even for the first law, conservation of energy probably doesn't hold once you look at cosmology.
Your response is hilarious.
Your response, however, is simply depressing, since clearly you graduated college without even a basic understanding of the scientific method.
The laws of thermodynamics can be shown to be statistically true and hold for all real world cases using nothing but the standard model and statistics
Within classical physics or standard quantum mechanics and finite systems, that's mostly true. Even there, it's not actually a law, because over very long time scales, you do get spontaneous entropy decreases, so those "laws" are simply statements about what you are likely to see, not what you are guaranteed to see.
We don't know whether it's true for black holes, general relativity, cosmology, or a ToE. Heck, we don't even know whether it's true for a more complete version of quantum mechanics.
Bollocks.
You said it: your response is bollocks. You're thinking like a designer of steam engines, and I suppose in that domain, you are right.
when english speaking non westerners will eventually overrule the biased westerners at wikipedia
Or perhaps people like you will come to their senses and start taking a more nuanced view of history. According to modern standards, the British Empire committed horrible crimes against humanity, but not judged within its historical context. Furthermore, no matter how you view what the British Empire did, the fact is that it played an enormous role in shaping the modern world. Arguably, humanity, even the peoples it subjugated, would be far worse off today without the British Empire, just like Britain and much of Europe would be far worse off without the Roman empire and the massive changes it brought to Europe.
my example of choice is the article on british empire. which mentions sun always shined there, but minimal mention of brutal genocidal wars the principal means of conquest and subjugation, constant revolts and mutinies in almost every country under it and the resulting savage suppressions accompanied by large scale massacres, regular famines that killed off millions well in to 1940s, land grabs and resource exploitation on a massive scale , etc etc.
That's a mischaracterization. There is plenty of information on Wikipedia on British colonial wars and the effects of British colonialism, its involvement in slavery and human rights abuses, its consequences for the modern world, and its exploitation. There is an entire category devoted to "Famines in British India". There is also an extensive discussion ("Historiography of the British Empire") of how people have written the history of the British Empire over the years.
Some "laws" of physics are mathematical in nature; that is, they are logically true, like the laws of arithmetic.
Some "laws" of physics are experimentally verified; that is, you can run experiments and observe the results directly, like inverse square laws at macroscopic scales.
The "laws of thermodynamics" aren't either of those; they are instead a statement about the non-existence of certain physical effects. As such, they are the weakest of the three kinds of laws. It would probably be better to call them "the conjectures of thermodynamics". In principle, there might by physical effects that allow you to circumvent those "laws".
Think of an alien observing a modern encoded and encrypted communications channel; they might formulate a "law" that says "the values on this channel are random and unpredictable". However, if you explained to them the compression algorithm and gave them the decryption key, they would discover that their "law" is in fact false. It might be the same with the universe: things that look random and unpredictable might well not be if we only got the "decryption key".
Having said that, however, there are strong limits on how you could produces such physical effects. Maybe you could produce them with a quantum computer or near a black hole. You are not going to produce them with a bunch of gears, however. So, for almost everybody, the "laws" of thermodynamics might actually be "laws", although they aren't quite as bullet-proof as the name suggests.
Indeed. And the difference is that these donations have political influence through actually going to kids, while union donations simply pay off politicians that funnel money in the direction of teachers and administrators.
Slashdot Mirror
And the reason the companies were quick to settle was that a protracted lawsuit would have been expensive and bad PR, not because the lawsuits were justified.
There is no basis for those statements. Apple and Google pay quite well, and there are thousands of other companies in Silicon Valley where people can work (and that pay even better than either). And the reason companies like Apple and Google do this is not to keep salaries down, it is to avoid disrupting their teams and deadlines.
I don't consider it a breach of ethics, and probably lots of other people don't either.
AFAIK, all that existed was a "no poaching" agreement; that is, the companies agreed not to cold-call each others' employees. Plenty of people have moved between Apple and Google.
Twitter has been taken over by public relations firms, minor celebrities, and social justice warriors. Besides simple trolling, insults, and social signaling, its contents consist largely of republished headlines and self promotion. People aren't interesting in having that bullshit pushed on them in 160 character chunks, and they are certainly not going to pay for it. That's why Twitter is pretty much doomed.
So, on what basis do certain politicians demand that they pay more taxes in the US?
It's not so much that the US dollar is "strong", it's that European governments are screwing up even worse than the US government.
Well, depends on the terms. They can give you reduce rates and reciprocal privileges.
There, FTFY
Market swings don't need to be "justified".
"You are unmutual."
Actually, the number of quota refugees for Finland is about 1000, and the number of actual refugees is about 15000. Yes, firing 1000 well paid university staff probably actually amounts to paying for a large fraction of Finland's share of the Syrian refugees.
The stock market has been highly regulated since the progressive era; "deregulation" is a misnomer, and simply refers to crony capitalist handouts to Wall Street, not an actual removal of significant regulations.
Furthermore, the market is a random walk, so yes, big market drops are fairly regular. That's a good thing too.
Of course, people use past information for predicting the future, how is that in any way remarkable, or a problem?
Obviously, if you trade ten times as fast, your market moves ten times as fast. But you claimed that the swings don't just get faster, they also get bigger in magnitude than they would for a slower moving market.
Why does the NYSE do anything? To make money for themselves and for the people they are in bed with. They certainly don't do it to help you or me.
When HFT produces large swings, most likely someone screwed up on their HFT algorithm. That's a good thing for anybody not using HFT (i.e., you and me). It absolutely sucks for the people making those trades.
Yes, and why is that? Because governmental financial regulations make it next to impossible to create new markets in securities (or any other kinds of financial services). That is, the primary effect of those financial regulations that ostensibly exist to "protect" us is to create government mandated monopolies. It is no wonder that people like Hillary are in bed with Wall Street.
The fact that these government-created monopolies happen to use high frequency trading is pretty much irrelevant; before HFT, they'd just charge vastly inflated prices for trades. One way or another, they get their monopoly rents.
Predictions about future returns are part of "the value of something right now", so your distinction makes no sense.
No, it doesn't. It introduces delays and dependencies on the future, but people make both kinds of errors on stocks.
In fact, the opposite is true mathematically: longer delays tend to produce bigger swings, for the simple reason that a system can go off the rails longer before the market corrects it.
But there's an even more basic error in your reasoning, namely the assumption that market swings are bad or that we should adopt policies to reduce them.
Once you open source it, you don't have to worry about the source code getting out anymore...
Yes, that was a service to humanity: most human cultures are simply not worth preserving. The Roman empire destroyed the culture of my ancestors, and I'm glad they did.
I disagree with the premise. Wikipedia lists the actions of all those regimes, including the British Empire, so the charge of "whitewashing" doesn't hold.
And criminal fascists and nationalists yearn back for the lost cultures of their ancestors. The Nazis built an entire totalitarian regime on political yearnings like yours.
Wikipedia is a private effort, and it is popular because people find it useful. If you don't like what it says, start your own effort. There are a whole bunch of alternative 'pedias like that.
I recommend you do the same thing.
Yes, and I consider that to be OK; it is sufficient that those articles are elsewhere on Wikipedia, with "minimal mention" in the main article.
You can't ever "verify" physical laws, all you can do is fail to falsify them experimentally. What those high school experiments did was "fail to falsify" the laws of thermodynamics under the conditions that existed at your high school (which presumably lacked black holes or bubble universes).
I was actually talking about the second law, not the first law. But even for the first law, conservation of energy probably doesn't hold once you look at cosmology.
Your response, however, is simply depressing, since clearly you graduated college without even a basic understanding of the scientific method.
Within classical physics or standard quantum mechanics and finite systems, that's mostly true. Even there, it's not actually a law, because over very long time scales, you do get spontaneous entropy decreases, so those "laws" are simply statements about what you are likely to see, not what you are guaranteed to see.
We don't know whether it's true for black holes, general relativity, cosmology, or a ToE. Heck, we don't even know whether it's true for a more complete version of quantum mechanics.
You said it: your response is bollocks. You're thinking like a designer of steam engines, and I suppose in that domain, you are right.
Or perhaps people like you will come to their senses and start taking a more nuanced view of history. According to modern standards, the British Empire committed horrible crimes against humanity, but not judged within its historical context. Furthermore, no matter how you view what the British Empire did, the fact is that it played an enormous role in shaping the modern world. Arguably, humanity, even the peoples it subjugated, would be far worse off today without the British Empire, just like Britain and much of Europe would be far worse off without the Roman empire and the massive changes it brought to Europe.
That's a mischaracterization. There is plenty of information on Wikipedia on British colonial wars and the effects of British colonialism, its involvement in slavery and human rights abuses, its consequences for the modern world, and its exploitation. There is an entire category devoted to "Famines in British India". There is also an extensive discussion ("Historiography of the British Empire") of how people have written the history of the British Empire over the years.
I find it hard to imagine that any sane person would actually want that job.
Some "laws" of physics are mathematical in nature; that is, they are logically true, like the laws of arithmetic.
Some "laws" of physics are experimentally verified; that is, you can run experiments and observe the results directly, like inverse square laws at macroscopic scales.
The "laws of thermodynamics" aren't either of those; they are instead a statement about the non-existence of certain physical effects. As such, they are the weakest of the three kinds of laws. It would probably be better to call them "the conjectures of thermodynamics". In principle, there might by physical effects that allow you to circumvent those "laws".
Think of an alien observing a modern encoded and encrypted communications channel; they might formulate a "law" that says "the values on this channel are random and unpredictable". However, if you explained to them the compression algorithm and gave them the decryption key, they would discover that their "law" is in fact false. It might be the same with the universe: things that look random and unpredictable might well not be if we only got the "decryption key".
Having said that, however, there are strong limits on how you could produces such physical effects. Maybe you could produce them with a quantum computer or near a black hole. You are not going to produce them with a bunch of gears, however. So, for almost everybody, the "laws" of thermodynamics might actually be "laws", although they aren't quite as bullet-proof as the name suggests.
Indeed. And the difference is that these donations have political influence through actually going to kids, while union donations simply pay off politicians that funnel money in the direction of teachers and administrators.