So in your stock investing process, do you tend more toward a "technical" or "fundamentalist" style?
It seems to me that the style embodied in HFT should be called "hypertechnical at warp speed".
It's neither. It's arbitrage. You see a bid at 12, an ask at 10, and immediately go in and buy the stock from the seller at 10 and immediately resell it to the bidder at 12.
There was plenty of fraud, but there were problems besides fraud. Remember the "tranched" securities? It turns out they were unstable. A very small error in the expected default rate for the lowest tranch translated into a very large difference in the default rate for the highest tranch.
My guess is this article was written on behalf of some of his friends at Google, who's trying to hire from the same pool of engineers that Goldman's is in NYC. Because, you know, advertising is SO much more noble a profession than determining how to provide capital to innovative startups.
Ah, yes...an engineer in NYC has a choice, a choice between dark and light, a choice between evil and <strike>good</strike>not evil. As usual, evil pays better, or so I've been told.
However, if you're worried about providing capital to startups, I might point out that Google does that too.
I believe some of you are indeed doing a good job with C++. But, everyone uses C++ in a different way so you can't really speak for "C++ programmers". The OP could be a C++ programmer too.
Of course I am. You can acquire a distaste for C++ as a non-C++ programmer (a C programmer in my case). Even a certain apprehension about it. But to really hate it, you have to work with it. The horrid syntax. The features that almost-but-not-quite do what you want, and occasionally blow up in your face. The opaque error messages (OK, maybe that's more the compiler's fault than the language, but still...).
It's templates I pick on the most, because using their full power always requires almost-incomprehensible hacks. But probably the worst gotcha is temporary object creation. You can end up with objects being created and destroyed at all sorts of unexpected times. And thanks to RVO/NRVO, it's not always obvious when that _won't_ happen.
If there's anything "chilling" about this request, I sure don't see it. When you write a blog article that is critical of a political party, and get over a half-million hits within days, you should expect a little attention from the people you're poking a stick at.
If you knew that writing a critical blog article would result in all your correspondence being revealed to those you criticized, you'd be less likely to write it, right? That's the chilling effect.
Still, if the Open Records Law really makes every professor's email publicly available, the Republicans are just playing by the rules here. If the law does not do so, hopefully the University's lawyers will tell the Republicans off and they'll have egg on their face.
If the law does say that, it would make it rather difficult for a professor to have confidential email exchanges with his colleagues; if any rival (academic or political) could just ask for his emails, no one elsewhere would want to correspond with him on his official address. And as bill.cronton@free-email.invalid, who in academia would take him seriously? But that's the fault of the law, not the Republicans.
Exchanges with students are a non-issue, as the federal law would IMO (IANAL) certainly override the state open records law
C++ just keeps on going, eating the brains out of anyone who dares to use it. When template metaprogramming was invented, the language should have been internationally banned by treaty. Now with lambdas, garbage collection, rvalue references, and a host of other features, C++ should be officially classed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
What a bunch of bullshit. When AT&T ruled the earth, you couldn't connect anything but a Company Approved Phone [tm] to their lines, otherwise something might explode. Oh, and you can't buy a phone from the store, you have to rent one from the company store. You can have any color you like, as long as it's black.
Maybe Apple and RIM need to sue in regular court, then your question would apply.
Regular courts are too slow; by the time the final decision comes down it's moot or nearly so. So everything is effectively decided in the preliminary stages, whether via an ITC order to stop imports, or a TRO, or whatever. Once you've blocked the other guy's product, you just drag out the regular court proceedings until they cry uncle.
Knowing a bunch of design patterns by name isn't as important as figuring out once and for all that you can structure your program in such a way that you can create interfaces (not necessarily actual interfaces/protocols) between different parts of your program and essentially replace them, or at least rework them entirely without having the whole house of cards collapsing.
You can teach that to sophomores. Then, you let juniors and seniors find out that abstractions leak and much of this beauty fails to exist in the real world.
Virtual machines were an early, failed attempt at getting around the limitations of early compiler technology.
Say what? Virtual machines were an early, successful attempt at allowing multiple users to use the same machine at the same time for different purposes.
esp. that you are forced to declare all supported interfaces at class declaration time (and yes, I don't know a statically typed language that doesn't have that problem
They wouldn't be able to live so far away from work if gas taxes or road taxes reflected their true costs on the user. Right now, gas taxes alone do not cover the maintenance of roads.
That's sort of cute, in a "how to lie with statistics" way. Take the state of Pennsylvania, for instance. They're including in local non-user revenues the state subsidy of roughly 600 million dollars (greater than the . Only thing is, those state revenues come from money collected largely through state user fees. They also consider bonds (which will be paid back at least in part from user revenues) and federal funds (much of which come from federal user fees) as non-user.
Sure, you can compile and run your own Samba on OS X, but the version of Samba that's used to support access to SMB shares is a signed part of the OS X. You cannot replace it without having the signing key. If you use OS X to mount SMB shares, you can only do so with Apple binaries, not with your own binaries (unless you go via MacFuSE, that is).
I don't think this is true. The code has to be signed, but only by a key in the System keychain (which you can add to), not by the Apple key. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried this with Samba, but I have modified the Airport driver and signed it with my own key)
In the US, what happens is that there is no legal contract until you have read and accepted the license. No legal contract means nothing can be enforced, and you have no right to make copies of the software, like running or installing it. If you use the software in breach of an EULA, then it is same as with a breach of the GPL: It is copyright infringement.
As far as I know, no court has ever accepted that particular line of reasoning. Some have found the EULAs enforcable, some have found them unenforceable, but none has found license violation to be copyright infringement unless that violation would in itself be infringement.
Running or installing the software is covered under 17 USC 117; once a copy of the program has been purchased (and make no mistake about it, that shiny disc is a copy of the program; you can't own the media but not the copy of the program on it), the owner has every right to use it.
Autonomous cars seem excessive, when there are safe, already available alternatives, like taxi service.
Sure, if you live in a major city. Lots of the US doesn't have taxi service. And in those areas outside major cities where taxi service exists, its not typically reasonably priced.
The fact is, actual honest-to-god "the light is red, and I'm going to intentionally proceed through the intersection anyway" offenses are almost *unheard* of in the US. At the end of the day, it's probably the #1 greatest cultural taboo in America. Americans will sit at a red light at 3am on a deserted 6-lane road for 5 minutes. We'll spend 10 minutes backing up and moving forward in a roomba-like forward-facing figure-8 pattern shifting across 2 or 3 lanes trying to trigger broken sensors, and do a U-turn over a curb and raised median if we believe that the light really, truly, is never going to turn green... but actually proceeding forward through a red light? Never.
Maybe where you live. In Philadelphia, deliberate red light running is common. Cops and SEPTA buses are the biggest offenders, but ordinary citizens do it all the time too.
The New York Times did not intend people to collect all feeds in a singular location to make it easier for people to read articles for free. The intention was to allow genuine subscribers to share articles, and hopefully entice others to subscribe to get the full content.
Who the fuck cares what they intended? J. Random Twitter user is not required to divine the Times's intent, let alone respect it. The Times itself tweeted these articles, the Times itself provided those feeds, and in doing so they did not somehow create an obligation (legal or otherwise) to anyone else not to link to them.
It's not like we need to be civil or anything
What's uncivil is to try to apply your own personal rules of civility to the rest of the world at large. If the NYT doesn't want to provide Twitter users free articles, they can feel free to stop. If they don't want to feed the links to twitter themselves, again, they can feel free to stop. However, for them to demand that they be able to feed the links to twitter but expect that no one else point this out is not at all civil.
The scariest (or most interesting) part of this is that it's not so much that the lawyers said so, but the law itself says that is the amount.
No, it doesn't:
17 USC 504(c)(1): (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
Clause 2 extends the limits down to $200 or up to $100,000 depending on circumstances. The idea that this statutory award is per work and per infringer is entirely the twisted interpretation of the RIAA lawyers; it's not in the plain language of the law, which specifies the award is per work. (yes, I can see how you can twist it that way; no I don't think it's valid)
That's just it. We're not proles (from pro+olescere, to grow from, i.e. progeny, child).
Short for "proletarian" from "proletarius", a member of the lowest class in Rome. That was indeed from "proles", children, but the intermediate step is important.
Before H-1B there wasn't so much hyper-credentialism.
I think the hypercredentialism is largely there to justify the H-1Bs. For any ridiculous list of credentials, there's a dozen H-1Bs who can fill it. Of course their credentials are unverifiable, but that's not the point; the point is that the credentials of any American who attempts it ARE verifiable.
And, once again, we did/do great work in science, engineering, utilities, defense, nuclear power, fusion research -- not the lame garbage (CRM, social networking, ERP, web-weaving, "supply chain management"...) we see in job ads, today.
ERP, CRM, and supply chain management have been around a long time; they're dull, but not new.
Slashdot Mirror
It's neither. It's arbitrage. You see a bid at 12, an ask at 10, and immediately go in and buy the stock from the seller at 10 and immediately resell it to the bidder at 12.
There was plenty of fraud, but there were problems besides fraud. Remember the "tranched" securities? It turns out they were unstable. A very small error in the expected default rate for the lowest tranch translated into a very large difference in the default rate for the highest tranch.
Ah, yes...an engineer in NYC has a choice, a choice between dark and light, a choice between evil and <strike>good</strike>not evil. As usual, evil pays better, or so I've been told.
However, if you're worried about providing capital to startups, I might point out that Google does that too.
Of course I am. You can acquire a distaste for C++ as a non-C++ programmer (a C programmer in my case). Even a certain apprehension about it. But to really hate it, you have to work with it. The horrid syntax. The features that almost-but-not-quite do what you want, and occasionally blow up in your face. The opaque error messages (OK, maybe that's more the compiler's fault than the language, but still...).
It's templates I pick on the most, because using their full power always requires almost-incomprehensible hacks. But probably the worst gotcha is temporary object creation. You can end up with objects being created and destroyed at all sorts of unexpected times. And thanks to RVO/NRVO, it's not always obvious when that _won't_ happen.
Personally, I prefer "gyp" rather than "jew". Just as insulting, but more socially acceptable.
And cracking DRM usually involves hacking.
If you knew that writing a critical blog article would result in all your correspondence being revealed to those you criticized, you'd be less likely to write it, right? That's the chilling effect.
Still, if the Open Records Law really makes every professor's email publicly available, the Republicans are just playing by the rules here. If the law does not do so, hopefully the University's lawyers will tell the Republicans off and they'll have egg on their face.
If the law does say that, it would make it rather difficult for a professor to have confidential email exchanges with his colleagues; if any rival (academic or political) could just ask for his emails, no one elsewhere would want to correspond with him on his official address. And as bill.cronton@free-email.invalid, who in academia would take him seriously? But that's the fault of the law, not the Republicans.
Exchanges with students are a non-issue, as the federal law would IMO (IANAL) certainly override the state open records law
std::list::size() is O(N) because making it O(1) makes splice O(N).
C++ just keeps on going, eating the brains out of anyone who dares to use it. When template metaprogramming was invented, the language should have been internationally banned by treaty. Now with lambdas, garbage collection, rvalue references, and a host of other features, C++ should be officially classed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Actually, there were quite a few colors.
I'm talking about VM/CMS. Yes, it's time sharing. It's also based on virtual machines (hence "VM").
Regular courts are too slow; by the time the final decision comes down it's moot or nearly so. So everything is effectively decided in the preliminary stages, whether via an ITC order to stop imports, or a TRO, or whatever. Once you've blocked the other guy's product, you just drag out the regular court proceedings until they cry uncle.
You can teach that to sophomores. Then, you let juniors and seniors find out that abstractions leak and much of this beauty fails to exist in the real world.
Say what? Virtual machines were an early, successful attempt at allowing multiple users to use the same machine at the same time for different purposes.
Go, Objective C.
That's sort of cute, in a "how to lie with statistics" way. Take the state of Pennsylvania, for instance. They're including in local non-user revenues the state subsidy of roughly 600 million dollars (greater than the . Only thing is, those state revenues come from money collected largely through state user fees. They also consider bonds (which will be paid back at least in part from user revenues) and federal funds (much of which come from federal user fees) as non-user.
I don't think this is true. The code has to be signed, but only by a key in the System keychain (which you can add to), not by the Apple key. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried this with Samba, but I have modified the Airport driver and signed it with my own key)
As far as I know, no court has ever accepted that particular line of reasoning. Some have found the EULAs enforcable, some have found them unenforceable, but none has found license violation to be copyright infringement unless that violation would in itself be infringement.
Running or installing the software is covered under 17 USC 117; once a copy of the program has been purchased (and make no mistake about it, that shiny disc is a copy of the program; you can't own the media but not the copy of the program on it), the owner has every right to use it.
Sure, if you live in a major city. Lots of the US doesn't have taxi service. And in those areas outside major cities where taxi service exists, its not typically reasonably priced.
Maybe where you live. In Philadelphia, deliberate red light running is common. Cops and SEPTA buses are the biggest offenders, but ordinary citizens do it all the time too.
I can see two ways this could go. One, plentiful geothermal power wherever you can dig a big enough hole.
Two, artificial volcanos.
Either one is pretty cool.
Who the fuck cares what they intended? J. Random Twitter user is not required to divine the Times's intent, let alone respect it. The Times itself tweeted these articles, the Times itself provided those feeds, and in doing so they did not somehow create an obligation (legal or otherwise) to anyone else not to link to them.
What's uncivil is to try to apply your own personal rules of civility to the rest of the world at large. If the NYT doesn't want to provide Twitter users free articles, they can feel free to stop. If they don't want to feed the links to twitter themselves, again, they can feel free to stop. However, for them to demand that they be able to feed the links to twitter but expect that no one else point this out is not at all civil.
No, it doesn't:
Clause 2 extends the limits down to $200 or up to $100,000 depending on circumstances. The idea that this statutory award is per work and per infringer is entirely the twisted interpretation of the RIAA lawyers; it's not in the plain language of the law, which specifies the award is per work. (yes, I can see how you can twist it that way; no I don't think it's valid)
Naa, that's JIS.
Short for "proletarian" from "proletarius", a member of the lowest class in Rome. That was indeed from "proles", children, but the intermediate step is important.
I think the hypercredentialism is largely there to justify the H-1Bs. For any ridiculous list of credentials, there's a dozen H-1Bs who can fill it. Of course their credentials are unverifiable, but that's not the point; the point is that the credentials of any American who attempts it ARE verifiable.
ERP, CRM, and supply chain management have been around a long time; they're dull, but not new.
Not so; it's only in the megawatt range. Just head down to the local aluminum smelter to see wiring easily capable of that.