Also, ranking results by reading level, length, etc would probably go a long way to getting rid of junk and help in research. Real text analysis. That would help meaningful content get to the top of results.
Go to Google advanced search, and you can choose to annotate by reading level.
That's because they have a life away from the computer. Probably whatever they specialize in for a living is something you know nothing about, and you might even sound pretty dumb to them in that field of expertise.
This is all very good and proper egalitarian thinking, but alas, it's rarely accurate. People who don't have a clue about the basic operation of their computers, despite having it explained to them multiple times in multiple ways, are not simply people with lives away from their computers. They're either old and set in their ways, or just plain stupid. And the former group is getting smaller.
ObCarAnalogy: It's like people who drive regularly but can't figure out to fill the gas tank, or that the "oil" warning light on the dash is a bad thing, despite having this explained to them.
BZuck is not alone, many people confound politeness (civil discourse, minimal insults, etc) with the quality of the discussion. They seem to say, if you cannot say it politely, it should not be said at all. Or worse, if you can't be civil, you must shut up.
Yes. The step after that is to apply different (often ludicrously different) standards of politeness to content you disagree with than content you agree with. Then you can apply content-based censorship under the veil of protecting civility.
Using your real identity or having a pseudonym that can easily be linked to your real identity makes people behave in a more cooperative and constructive way because they could be held accountable for their words.
Held accountable to whom?
In case the answer isn't obvious, the answer for public discourse is "To everyone and anyone who is now or may in the future have power over you." Which means that if you want to safely communicate using your real identity, you have to either be so powerful that few will ever be able to hold you to answer, or restrict your discourse to the most bland of subjects.
Got any idea how few Americans can stand eyeball to eyeball with a cop, and calmly, clearly, tell the cop that he is out of line, and that he will be called out in court?
You can tell him that. You're wrong, and he knows you're wrong. When you go to court, HIS conduct will not be in question, only yours.
"I'm going to search your car." is answered with "YES SIR!" instead of "I don't give you permission to search my car." "You were speeding." is met with whining and pleading instead of "You are mistaken, officer." And, when people go in front of a judge, it's outright groveling.
Try standing up for yourself that way sometime. It doesn't work. It might help your dignity, but they'll just punish you for not groveling. Or, even if you get your way, they punish you procedurally and make you feel like you're getting a favor when they finally drop the case. Been there and done that.
I think it was Robert Heinlein who observed that the man who humbles himself before the court gets away with a slap on the wrist, but the man who stands up for his rights will get the book thrown at him every time.
Organizations representing Hindus in the United States claim that Hinduism is inherently monotheist and the proliferation of deities is only a colourful embellishment on that ultimate truth of divine unity.
Here in Norway there is a number of people who scoff at service workers, academics and "desk workers" and claim that only the "primary professions" (farming, fishing, logging etc.) and industry are contributing value.
Here in the US, we have those people too. Most of them are academics and desk workers, oddly enough.
We did? What law protects workers from automation? There's plenty of automated manufacturing in the US. Your claim that the US hasn't invested in efficiency is made up out of thin air. Care to provide any references?
The other version of the narrative is that the US and other western nations DID invest in automation... but Chinese labor was cheaper than Western automation, leading to automation being dealt a serious setback.
The thing is they're right : shift has lower precedence than adding so what you're really doing is account.balance += (account.balance + account.balance )
So by doing that you've increased your profits by 70% with a perfectly plausible optimization. If it's ever discovered you just claim honest error.
Is this a joke? Because for anyone actually familiar with the DC area, this makes no sense. The red line actually serves some of the most affluent areas of the DMV.
Sure. Get out on the wrong stop on the Green line, though, and your life expectancy drops to zero.
I make the majority of my income buying and selling illegal drugs. (Mostly moving marijuana from California to the Midwest/South.) Posting anon for obvious reasons. I make close to 300k a year, and only work about 10-20 hours a week. You can imagine that the ratio of blood pressure to income is one of the best in this occupation.
Unfortunately, marijuana is not commoditized (though certainly it could be) and there's no futures market for it. Thus the speed of weed arbitrage is limited by how fast you can move the actual product, and the spread has to cover the transportation costs. There's no need for HFT systems.
It's about the world we want to live in, which stands in ever-starker contrast to the world we do live in.
Do you want to live in a world where the best and brightest throw their efforts away with such mundane, trivial shit?
I don't want to live in a world where it's my business where other people choose to place their efforts (nor theirs mine, obviously). And that's why I think that particular argument against HFT -- that it drains talent from other "more important" fields -- is fatally flawed.
They are one of the biggest UK/EU tax dodgers. They don't give back to society. Ever hear about the Double Dutch Sandwich?
The Double Dutch sandwich is kind of funny. It's sort of like a law which says if you go to the tax office the normal way, you pay 20%. But if you take the long route walking backwards while balancing a beach ball on your nose and playing a kazoo, you only pay 3%. So any company with sufficient resources hires a few circus performers to go to the tax office the long way, walking backwards while balancing beach balls on their noses and paying kazoos, pays a flat rate for that, and saves 17%. It's not unethical; the rules are silly, that's all.
The problem is the huge amounts of resources that is wasted on this game and the impact we are letting it have on our lives. The worlds brightest minds are spent in the game. You may not see it as a problem that the best mathematicians and programmers are working in the finance industry instead of developing a cure for cancer, affordable space shuttles, electric cars, aids vaccine or whatever because the salaries are much higher there so obviously that is what the market wants and the market is always right.
So what? Are you a slaver? Developing a cure for cancer or an AIDS vaccine? Pays for shit, particularly for anyone lacking that biochemistry Ph.D; the grad students actually programming the models are probably living on ramen noodles, and the postdocs not much better. Affordable space shuttles? Nobody wants them. Electric cars? Not such great pay either, unless you're one of the principals. Probably better than ramen noodles, but still not going to make any mathematician or programmer rich.
So what we have with high frequency trading is a field where a mathematician or a programmer can cut himself a good-sized slice of the pie. Still nothing like what the principals are making, but more than he'll make on the staff of an electric car company and far more than in medical R&D. And you'd take this away, not because HFT is somehow harmful in and of itself, but because you want those mathematicians and programmers working in the fields of YOUR choice, not theirs. You ARE a slaver, whether you realize it or not.
If you really think electric cars, cancer cures, aids vaccines, and the like are being held back for lack of mathematical and programming talent, you should be looking for ways to increase the compensation for mathematicians and programmers in those fields. Not to take away the fields which have better compensation so they have no choice.
(I don't work for an HFT trader; I work for Google. But I also know that the existence of extremely high-paying jobs in the HFT field puts upward pressure on salaries for programmers in other fields, including making electric cars or writing search engines. So I do benefit from their existence)
I can debug in minutes and push out a new version in the seconds before market open
No peer reviews and/or staging deployments before going to prod? This sounds fishy...
*sigh*. These young ones, with their peer reviews and staging deployments. HFT programmers evidently hark back to a less bureaucratized age, when you could be a hero by hot-patching the running image in the production system. Wouldn't mind doing it myself, as my temperament runs more to cowboy than code review, but 100 hours a week is too much, even for $500K.
I call BS. You don't need much skill or talent in writing code that effectively does this in the end:
account.balance *= 10.0;
The challenge isn't making the code do that. The challenge is making it look like the code is intended to do something entirely different, and that part is merely an unavoidable side effect.
Just forget about it. These guys have the courts and judges on their sides. They make up their own bullshit rules and they get them to stick. Shut down the company, sell the assets, pay the debts, and distribute anything which remains to the shareholders. When the BSA comes they can find an empty office (or maybe a nail salon).
How about instead of increasing the debt limit they A) Stop pissing away money and B) Find a way to MAKE money. Making money doesn't mean in curring more debt.
I'd love to see them stop pissing away money, but it ain't going to happen by August 2nd. They're playing a brinksmanship game, but if nobody blinks nobody will like the outcome.
As for making more money, generally governments are better on the taking money than the making money, so I'd rather they not.
the typical American has more debt than they do fungible assets
I don't know where you came up with that whopper! The vast vast majority of Americans have a positive net worth. Yes there are many who don't; especially with the housing bubble busting but inflation is NOT beneficial to most American's portfolios.
He said "fungible" assets. And that's true. Real estate isn't fungible.
I'm an engineer with over a decade of experience in the signalling business (although thankfully not the Chinese one). Fail Safe is what it's all about.
Then you know that US systems, despite a fail-safe design, have failed unsafe when struck by lightning.
Interesting. English with the quirks common to native speakers of three different languages (Russian, Spanish, and whatever the fuck that thing they call "English" in India is). Maybe some German too.
Not a secret conspiracy, just the natural result of self-interested behavior and network effects. In a new field a slight imbalance can create a snowball effect that dominates the field.
Except that it didn't. The "snowball" continued to roll uphill for 15 years.
this shift is described as taking place in the 60's, and according to the original article, there were still lots of women programming in the 80's.
No, the shift is described as starting in the 60's. The fact that 37% of undergraduate CS majors were women in 1985 does not contradict the claim that women were discriminated against beginning in the late 1960's. Cultural shifts take time. Women had to retire, change jobs, etc in order for men to dominate the field. And it took time for the trend to become obvious enough that women stopped enrolling in CS programs.
The trend in the professional field lags undergraduate enrollment by 3 years. It does not lead it (thus the change in the profession did not cause the change in undergraduate enrollment), nor does it lag it by anything like 15 years.
Elks lodges giving out answers to programming tests and thereby driving women out of the profession. Yeah, that's a likely story. And at the same time... 'The important distinction, however, was that programmers displayed "disinterest in peopleâ and that they disliked âoeactivities involving close personal interaction."'
OK, so we have a bunch of men who aren't interested in people and dislike activities involving close personal interaction. And who joined their local Elks Lodge. Something is wrong with that theory.
Also, the rather offensive "Optical Scanning Corporation" ad (and they had several in the same vein) was targeted against data entry operators, not programmers. Note also the person running the scanner is a woman.
Anyway, the timing is wrong. All that supposedly happened in the 1960s, but the peak for women in the field was 1984.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to Google advanced search, and you can choose to annotate by reading level.
This is all very good and proper egalitarian thinking, but alas, it's rarely accurate. People who don't have a clue about the basic operation of their computers, despite having it explained to them multiple times in multiple ways, are not simply people with lives away from their computers. They're either old and set in their ways, or just plain stupid. And the former group is getting smaller.
ObCarAnalogy: It's like people who drive regularly but can't figure out to fill the gas tank, or that the "oil" warning light on the dash is a bad thing, despite having this explained to them.
Yes. The step after that is to apply different (often ludicrously different) standards of politeness to content you disagree with than content you agree with. Then you can apply content-based censorship under the veil of protecting civility.
Held accountable to whom?
In case the answer isn't obvious, the answer for public discourse is "To everyone and anyone who is now or may in the future have power over you." Which means that if you want to safely communicate using your real identity, you have to either be so powerful that few will ever be able to hold you to answer, or restrict your discourse to the most bland of subjects.
It already is. It's how TDoA cell phone location works -- the cell towers themselves are the base stations.
You can tell him that. You're wrong, and he knows you're wrong. When you go to court, HIS conduct will not be in question, only yours.
Try standing up for yourself that way sometime. It doesn't work. It might help your dignity, but they'll just punish you for not groveling. Or, even if you get your way, they punish you procedurally and make you feel like you're getting a favor when they finally drop the case. Been there and done that.
I think it was Robert Heinlein who observed that the man who humbles himself before the court gets away with a slap on the wrist, but the man who stands up for his rights will get the book thrown at him every time.
Don't the Catholics have a similar stance?
Here in the US, we have those people too. Most of them are academics and desk workers, oddly enough.
The other version of the narrative is that the US and other western nations DID invest in automation... but Chinese labor was cheaper than Western automation, leading to automation being dealt a serious setback.
Sure. Get out on the wrong stop on the Green line, though, and your life expectancy drops to zero.
Unfortunately, marijuana is not commoditized (though certainly it could be) and there's no futures market for it. Thus the speed of weed arbitrage is limited by how fast you can move the actual product, and the spread has to cover the transportation costs. There's no need for HFT systems.
I don't want to live in a world where it's my business where other people choose to place their efforts (nor theirs mine, obviously). And that's why I think that particular argument against HFT -- that it drains talent from other "more important" fields -- is fatally flawed.
The Double Dutch sandwich is kind of funny. It's sort of like a law which says if you go to the tax office the normal way, you pay 20%. But if you take the long route walking backwards while balancing a beach ball on your nose and playing a kazoo, you only pay 3%. So any company with sufficient resources hires a few circus performers to go to the tax office the long way, walking backwards while balancing beach balls on their noses and paying kazoos, pays a flat rate for that, and saves 17%. It's not unethical; the rules are silly, that's all.
So what? Are you a slaver? Developing a cure for cancer or an AIDS vaccine? Pays for shit, particularly for anyone lacking that biochemistry Ph.D; the grad students actually programming the models are probably living on ramen noodles, and the postdocs not much better. Affordable space shuttles? Nobody wants them. Electric cars? Not such great pay either, unless you're one of the principals. Probably better than ramen noodles, but still not going to make any mathematician or programmer rich.
So what we have with high frequency trading is a field where a mathematician or a programmer can cut himself a good-sized slice of the pie. Still nothing like what the principals are making, but more than he'll make on the staff of an electric car company and far more than in medical R&D. And you'd take this away, not because HFT is somehow harmful in and of itself, but because you want those mathematicians and programmers working in the fields of YOUR choice, not theirs. You ARE a slaver, whether you realize it or not.
If you really think electric cars, cancer cures, aids vaccines, and the like are being held back for lack of mathematical and programming talent, you should be looking for ways to increase the compensation for mathematicians and programmers in those fields. Not to take away the fields which have better compensation so they have no choice.
(I don't work for an HFT trader; I work for Google. But I also know that the existence of extremely high-paying jobs in the HFT field puts upward pressure on salaries for programmers in other fields, including making electric cars or writing search engines. So I do benefit from their existence)
*sigh*. These young ones, with their peer reviews and staging deployments. HFT programmers evidently hark back to a less bureaucratized age, when you could be a hero by hot-patching the running image in the production system. Wouldn't mind doing it myself, as my temperament runs more to cowboy than code review, but 100 hours a week is too much, even for $500K.
The challenge isn't making the code do that. The challenge is making it look like the code is intended to do something entirely different, and that part is merely an unavoidable side effect.
Just forget about it. These guys have the courts and judges on their sides. They make up their own bullshit rules and they get them to stick. Shut down the company, sell the assets, pay the debts, and distribute anything which remains to the shareholders. When the BSA comes they can find an empty office (or maybe a nail salon).
I'd love to see them stop pissing away money, but it ain't going to happen by August 2nd. They're playing a brinksmanship game, but if nobody blinks nobody will like the outcome.
As for making more money, generally governments are better on the taking money than the making money, so I'd rather they not.
He said "fungible" assets. And that's true. Real estate isn't fungible.
Then you know that US systems, despite a fail-safe design, have failed unsafe when struck by lightning.
They're 50 now. Anyway, I saw the word "hubby" used earlier, so there's at least one female poster.
Interesting. English with the quirks common to native speakers of three different languages (Russian, Spanish, and whatever the fuck that thing they call "English" in India is). Maybe some German too.
Except that it didn't. The "snowball" continued to roll uphill for 15 years.
this shift is described as taking place in the 60's, and according to the original article, there were still lots of women programming in the 80's.
The trend in the professional field lags undergraduate enrollment by 3 years. It does not lead it (thus the change in the profession did not cause the change in undergraduate enrollment), nor does it lag it by anything like 15 years.
Elks lodges giving out answers to programming tests and thereby driving women out of the profession. Yeah, that's a likely story. And at the same time... 'The important distinction, however, was that programmers displayed "disinterest in peopleâ and that they disliked âoeactivities involving close personal interaction."' OK, so we have a bunch of men who aren't interested in people and dislike activities involving close personal interaction. And who joined their local Elks Lodge. Something is wrong with that theory. Also, the rather offensive "Optical Scanning Corporation" ad (and they had several in the same vein) was targeted against data entry operators, not programmers. Note also the person running the scanner is a woman. Anyway, the timing is wrong. All that supposedly happened in the 1960s, but the peak for women in the field was 1984.