Words like "fewer", "less" and "more" are useless, because it's not clear how much, and compared to what baseline. Those words give you a nice fuzzy feeling without actually committing to a debatable position.
For example: "Less government spending". How much less, and where exactly will the money come from ?
To be precise, you borrow shares, and then you sell them.
Legal, sure, but fraudulent nonetheless
That makes no sense. Fraud is illegal. You can't have legal fraud, and you can't just redefine well established worse.
And there's no problem with short selling. It provides liquidity, and it can be very helpful in a panic sell, because short sellers may be the only ones buying at such at time, and they can stabilize the stock prize.
Again, anyone who shorts a stock can cut his losses any moment he wants by re-buying the stock he sold at whatever the current price is that moment.
The current price is nothing but the value of the *last* sale that was done. There is absolutely no guarantee that you can buy back your shares for that price. It all depends on the order book and the amount of shares you wish to buy.
A successful attack will also cause bad publicity and a sudden drop in value of the coin, which will hurt the attacker just as well. That's good incentive not to perform an attack.
Gas prices in the US are about 1/3rd what they are in the UK, and somehow it hasn't destroyed our economy.
Same in the rest of Europe. The difference is that gas prices have always been low in the US, and the entire infrastructure/lifestyle is based on that. Big cars and great distances, resulting in relatively high impact of increasing gas prices.
And they aren't very efficient either. Photosynthesis only has efficiency of around 5%, much worse than PV solar, and only part of that energy is used for converting CO2 to cellulose.
Replacing coal burning plants with PV solar would be a more effective use of space.
Using 'corporations' is a weasel word. Let's be honest, and say that we need to tax people for buying products that release CO2 in the atmosphere. Charging $100-$200 for a ton of CO2 would double the price of gasoline, for instance.
The dollar price is a poor metric. We should really be looking at energy requirements, especially the ratio between energy produced per ton of CO2, and the energy required to pull it back from the air.
Except that paying the fine does not mean they get a waiver from the law. They have to pay the fine, and modify their business practices to comply with the law in the future.
I fail to see how this is anti competitive when no one i the region is even trying to compete.
It's not just about companies in the region, it's about every other company trying to compete. There are several search engines, for example, and if a manufacturer of an Android phone wants to offer different search engine options, Google should not interfere with that.
Slashdot Mirror
What money? The money we aren't spending?
The money from this pie chart shows where the governments spends the money:
https://www.usgovernmentspendi...
When you cut the government spending in half, which of the sections of the pie chart will be reduced/removed ?
If you don't trust the person behind the spreadsheet, a better RNG isn't going to help.
They could run a perfect RNG, and then just move the person of their choice to the top of the list.
If you want to avoid fraud, you need to compartmentalize the process.
This story is probably pushed by Big Random, who wants to get contracted to write a better system.
it appears that the flaw with Excel's PRNG is that, if you know the seed, then all of the resulting numbers are predictable.
That's how all PRNGs work.
Words like "fewer", "less" and "more" are useless, because it's not clear how much, and compared to what baseline. Those words give you a nice fuzzy feeling without actually committing to a debatable position.
For example: "Less government spending". How much less, and where exactly will the money come from ?
you're selling something you do not own,
To be precise, you borrow shares, and then you sell them.
Legal, sure, but fraudulent nonetheless
That makes no sense. Fraud is illegal. You can't have legal fraud, and you can't just redefine well established worse.
And there's no problem with short selling. It provides liquidity, and it can be very helpful in a panic sell, because short sellers may be the only ones buying at such at time, and they can stabilize the stock prize.
Again, anyone who shorts a stock can cut his losses any moment he wants by re-buying the stock he sold at whatever the current price is that moment.
The current price is nothing but the value of the *last* sale that was done. There is absolutely no guarantee that you can buy back your shares for that price. It all depends on the order book and the amount of shares you wish to buy.
And how much CO2 could we realistically store in a safe place (ruling out the ocean) ?
I'd rather see the money go into bringing carbon sequestration tech to scale.
Carbon sequestration makes no sense if the other guy is still digging new carbon out of the ground.
All that manual labor is expensive
Democracy is important enough that any place should have enough volunteers.
A successful attack will also cause bad publicity and a sudden drop in value of the coin, which will hurt the attacker just as well. That's good incentive not to perform an attack.
Drop it into a hole a mile deep in the Earth wold be preferred, really.
Not while other people are still busy drilling holes deep in the Earth to get carbon out.
Gas prices in the US are about 1/3rd what they are in the UK, and somehow it hasn't destroyed our economy.
Same in the rest of Europe. The difference is that gas prices have always been low in the US, and the entire infrastructure/lifestyle is based on that. Big cars and great distances, resulting in relatively high impact of increasing gas prices.
Maybe nuclear could be made cheaper by offering the construction/maintenance jobs to the lowest bidder ?
And they aren't very efficient either. Photosynthesis only has efficiency of around 5%, much worse than PV solar, and only part of that energy is used for converting CO2 to cellulose.
Replacing coal burning plants with PV solar would be a more effective use of space.
The same stuff they were breathing 100 years ago ?
we should begin taxing corporations
Using 'corporations' is a weasel word. Let's be honest, and say that we need to tax people for buying products that release CO2 in the atmosphere. Charging $100-$200 for a ton of CO2 would double the price of gasoline, for instance.
$100-200 a ton is a BARGAIN.
The dollar price is a poor metric. We should really be looking at energy requirements, especially the ratio between energy produced per ton of CO2, and the energy required to pull it back from the air.
Trees are not free. They take up valuable space that could be used for more profitable things.
Between $94 and $232 ? I had assumed it be somewhere between $100 and $250. Apparently I was wrong.
Luckily we're not yet even remotely close to "intelligence" (which scientists have yet to define)
If you don't have a definition, how do you know we're not even remotely close ?
Except that paying the fine does not mean they get a waiver from the law. They have to pay the fine, and modify their business practices to comply with the law in the future.
You have no idea what this case is about, do you ?
I fail to see how this is anti competitive when no one i the region is even trying to compete.
It's not just about companies in the region, it's about every other company trying to compete. There are several search engines, for example, and if a manufacturer of an Android phone wants to offer different search engine options, Google should not interfere with that.
The exit door will still have a window.