Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here: this is great. Taking a 30% cut is exploitative, 12% is quite reasonable. Fragmentation is a solvable problem, and is the problem we can only hope to have under the present circumstances.
he is successful at inspiring people to follow him. And he does it by being chaotic.
You're using that word in a funny way. "Inspire." I'm not sure that "chaotic" is really accurate either, his messages have really been quite consistent: "Blame everything bad on foreigners*, Muslims, and Democrats, in that order. The media is out to get me, and anything negative they say about me is fake. I am the biggest, best, and smartest person ever."
This trade war was just an extension of his practice of blaming things on foreigners - in this case, blaming China for perceived economic woes. This way he could present himself as the peoples' champion, fighting against China for our benefit. It's "inspirational" only to those people who are able to ignore the fact that he created the problem which he has now sort of resolved.
* "Except the ones I like, who are predominantly dictators."
Your comment is confusing. Data caps are not a violation of network neutrality, but this: "then makes sure that some of their services do not eat into that cap" this is a violation of network neutrality. I don't know what the point of your comment is, are you complaining that some people still don't know what network neutrality is?
I didn't get a "dark web" implication from that, it said controversial, not illegal. There are some select politicians who do this (lets not slander all politicians for the practices of the worst among them), but my first impression was that this was directed at the new breed of partisan "journalism" - where a pundit makes some groundless accusations or unsubstantiated claims, and when those claims are eventually painstakingly refuted the pundit just pretends they never happened.
Not that he is the first politician guilty of this.
Back in '08, McCain was still campaigning as the "straight talker" and during the primaries he made the mistake of telling people in Michigan that the auto industry was not going to come back. His opponents, meanwhile, made all sorts of promises about bringing back the auto industry and equating that to wholesome American values and probably using the word "freedom" a lot.
These were all lies, of course, but McCain got creamed in Michigan and shortly after that he fired most of his current campaign staff and re-branded himself as a more standard Republican - riling up the base and talking about "freedom" a lot, and equating that to low taxes. He was pretty much like that for the rest of the primaries and general election, up until his concession speech.
I was being sincere though I was addressing what the article said and peoples' reaction to it, rather than addressing what you said.
Article: "High frequency trading has taken finance outside of what humans are capable of analyzing or responding to, and the result is a system which places a higher value on microsecond latency than on careful investment."
Slashdot response: "We should introduce mandatory transaction times, to put trading back into the hands of humans."
Article: "The internet has so effectively reduced barriers to communication that information can spread faster than humans can analyze it or respond to it, and the result is a system which places a higher value on instinct than on facts."
Slashdot response: "Luddite! Authoritarian!" (I am amused* by how broadly people apply the word "authoritarian" nowadays.)
Yours is the only post in this thread that I see which is not opposed to the article's suggestion. I find that odd, because one of the suggestions that I see frequently here on Slashdot is that most of the problems with high frequency trading can be solved just by slowing it down. In other words: "adding friction" to it, if we use the article's jargon. The problems surrounding high frequency trading are very analogous to the ones that the article is talking about, and the proposed solution very similar, and yet the responses here are very different.
What the article is suggesting and what you are suggesting are not the same, but that's fine. At least you're actually thinking about your answer, instead of making some assumptions and responding reflexively.
That is a new development, and largely thanks to Trump. Only Auston was previously a solid blue enclave with 80%+ voters going Democratic: Dallas was in the sixties, and Houston was pretty close to evenly split. Trump has really polarized things - they're all blue now.
Bad resource management is going to continue regardless of anything you or I might do. Pretending that the problem is the one thing and not the other is missing the forest for the trees: overpopulation and poor resource management are convergent problems. You're right though - I am not optimistic about our future in this regard.
That said, I'm not a quitter. I'm not about to throw my hands up in the air and say, "Well the world's getting warmer and we could stop it, but... it's going to continue regardless of anything you or I might do. Let's just give up."
Overpopulation is a much easier problem to combat than poor resource management, if you think about exactly what that means. "Poor resource management" is a very simple way to describe a vast array of detrimental practices, from over consumption of animal products, to dependency on fossil fuels, to excessive use of plastics, to overeating, to disposable packaging, over fishing, over use of antibiotics, urban sprawl, deforestation, etc. etc.... It's a very, very long list.
Or we could just have fewer children. If I'm not a quitter, if I'm not going to throw my hands in the air and just give up, then that seems, by far, the most productive avenue of approach. Of course, there's no reason why we can't work on both things.
the fact that it's not what people might necessarily *want* is irrelevant
What? What people want is the issue here. It can't be irrelevant, it's the whole point: we're talking about competing wants. Some people want more children, some people want more stuff. If people don't want more children then we have no problem. If people don't want stuff then we have no problem. Either one of those conditions would be sufficient.
I'm aware that rich people have fewer children. You said as much above when you gave ten billion as the equilibrium point for population, that is the reason why the population is expected to equilibrate at ten billion. And then I said, "That's not good enough, that's still too many." And then you replied, "It's good enough if everyone agrees to share what we have and live modestly, instead of fighting over wealth." And I said, "Okay, sure, but that's not going to happen. Couldn't we focus on an actual implementable solution instead?"
Rich have fewer children, but rich people also consume more. A lot more. Way more than is accounted for by the voluntary reduction in children.
So your solution is communism? Communism will save us from overpopulation?
I've got no beef with communism, I'm not even strictly a pragmatist. I appreciate the need for idealism and idealistic solutions, but it's necessary to retain some sense of proportion here. What you're saying is that we don't need to ask people to have fewer children, because we can just have total, worldwide, economic upheaval instead. As though that were the easier solution, or more likely.
Ten billion is approximately five times as many people as the world can support, at a consumption rate equal to the average American. Unless your response is, "That's fine, we just need to make sure that the rest of the world stays poor." then you need to rethink your stance here.
This article is not saying that the claim is exaggerated. That's important, and it's easy to make that mistake. What this article is saying is that the claim could mean several different things. None of which are specified, but all of which are bad.
I guess the article's author felt that confusion on this point was worth writing about, though it seems unnecessary to me since the conclusion is the same regardless of specific way in which the data manifests.
Don't blame this on Pai. Well... don't blame it all on Pai anyway. He's just the goon doing what he always said he'd do. Blame this on congress, who appointed appointed him specifically because he said he'd do this. If you allow Pai to become the fall guy, nothing will change.
Though their nominal rate is 12.5%, they allow BER that results in an effective rate around 1%.
So right here you acknowledge that effective rate is different from nominal rate, and then you just go right on with this bullshit acting as though the US rate was 35%, and is now 21%. This is too transparent. I usually try to give people the benefit of a doubt, but you don't deserve it - you're clearly just trying to deceive people here.
The thing that really gets me is that this post is now three days old, and no one called you on this.
Slashdot Mirror
There are more moral ways to hide your wealth
There are more moral ways to commit tax fraud... I guess giving your money to the scientologists makes you a criminal+1.
Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here: this is great. Taking a 30% cut is exploitative, 12% is quite reasonable. Fragmentation is a solvable problem, and is the problem we can only hope to have under the present circumstances.
There certainly seems to be technology which can make fooling us easier and more effective, however. Maybe we could address that somehow.
he is successful at inspiring people to follow him. And he does it by being chaotic.
You're using that word in a funny way. "Inspire." I'm not sure that "chaotic" is really accurate either, his messages have really been quite consistent: "Blame everything bad on foreigners*, Muslims, and Democrats, in that order. The media is out to get me, and anything negative they say about me is fake. I am the biggest, best, and smartest person ever."
This trade war was just an extension of his practice of blaming things on foreigners - in this case, blaming China for perceived economic woes. This way he could present himself as the peoples' champion, fighting against China for our benefit. It's "inspirational" only to those people who are able to ignore the fact that he created the problem which he has now sort of resolved.
* "Except the ones I like, who are predominantly dictators."
No, "may" is correct. Never assume that a popular-science article about a single research paper is the end of the story.
That's only true because Trump's lies are all on Facebook.
Your comment is confusing. Data caps are not a violation of network neutrality, but this: "then makes sure that some of their services do not eat into that cap" this is a violation of network neutrality. I don't know what the point of your comment is, are you complaining that some people still don't know what network neutrality is?
You should link the response as well. The way you phrase it, "caught red handed," might suggest that this was some sort of nefarious conspiracy.
I didn't get a "dark web" implication from that, it said controversial, not illegal. There are some select politicians who do this (lets not slander all politicians for the practices of the worst among them), but my first impression was that this was directed at the new breed of partisan "journalism" - where a pundit makes some groundless accusations or unsubstantiated claims, and when those claims are eventually painstakingly refuted the pundit just pretends they never happened.
Not that he is the first politician guilty of this.
Back in '08, McCain was still campaigning as the "straight talker" and during the primaries he made the mistake of telling people in Michigan that the auto industry was not going to come back. His opponents, meanwhile, made all sorts of promises about bringing back the auto industry and equating that to wholesome American values and probably using the word "freedom" a lot.
These were all lies, of course, but McCain got creamed in Michigan and shortly after that he fired most of his current campaign staff and re-branded himself as a more standard Republican - riling up the base and talking about "freedom" a lot, and equating that to low taxes. He was pretty much like that for the rest of the primaries and general election, up until his concession speech.
If you're willing to pay through the nose you can keep an eye on ebay for an IBM Model M15. Just be aware that these cost $500+.
I was being sincere though I was addressing what the article said and peoples' reaction to it, rather than addressing what you said.
Article: "High frequency trading has taken finance outside of what humans are capable of analyzing or responding to, and the result is a system which places a higher value on microsecond latency than on careful investment."
Slashdot response: "We should introduce mandatory transaction times, to put trading back into the hands of humans."
Article: "The internet has so effectively reduced barriers to communication that information can spread faster than humans can analyze it or respond to it, and the result is a system which places a higher value on instinct than on facts."
Slashdot response: "Luddite! Authoritarian!" (I am amused* by how broadly people apply the word "authoritarian" nowadays.)
*I am not amused by this at all.
Yours is the only post in this thread that I see which is not opposed to the article's suggestion. I find that odd, because one of the suggestions that I see frequently here on Slashdot is that most of the problems with high frequency trading can be solved just by slowing it down. In other words: "adding friction" to it, if we use the article's jargon. The problems surrounding high frequency trading are very analogous to the ones that the article is talking about, and the proposed solution very similar, and yet the responses here are very different.
What the article is suggesting and what you are suggesting are not the same, but that's fine. At least you're actually thinking about your answer, instead of making some assumptions and responding reflexively.
That is a new development, and largely thanks to Trump. Only Auston was previously a solid blue enclave with 80%+ voters going Democratic: Dallas was in the sixties, and Houston was pretty close to evenly split. Trump has really polarized things - they're all blue now.
Bad resource management is going to continue regardless of anything you or I might do. Pretending that the problem is the one thing and not the other is missing the forest for the trees: overpopulation and poor resource management are convergent problems. You're right though - I am not optimistic about our future in this regard.
... It's a very, very long list.
That said, I'm not a quitter. I'm not about to throw my hands up in the air and say, "Well the world's getting warmer and we could stop it, but... it's going to continue regardless of anything you or I might do. Let's just give up."
Overpopulation is a much easier problem to combat than poor resource management, if you think about exactly what that means. "Poor resource management" is a very simple way to describe a vast array of detrimental practices, from over consumption of animal products, to dependency on fossil fuels, to excessive use of plastics, to overeating, to disposable packaging, over fishing, over use of antibiotics, urban sprawl, deforestation, etc. etc.
Or we could just have fewer children. If I'm not a quitter, if I'm not going to throw my hands in the air and just give up, then that seems, by far, the most productive avenue of approach. Of course, there's no reason why we can't work on both things.
the fact that it's not what people might necessarily *want* is irrelevant
What? What people want is the issue here. It can't be irrelevant, it's the whole point: we're talking about competing wants. Some people want more children, some people want more stuff. If people don't want more children then we have no problem. If people don't want stuff then we have no problem. Either one of those conditions would be sufficient.
But we do have a problem.
I'm aware that rich people have fewer children. You said as much above when you gave ten billion as the equilibrium point for population, that is the reason why the population is expected to equilibrate at ten billion. And then I said, "That's not good enough, that's still too many." And then you replied, "It's good enough if everyone agrees to share what we have and live modestly, instead of fighting over wealth." And I said, "Okay, sure, but that's not going to happen. Couldn't we focus on an actual implementable solution instead?"
Rich have fewer children, but rich people also consume more. A lot more. Way more than is accounted for by the voluntary reduction in children.
So your solution is communism? Communism will save us from overpopulation?
I've got no beef with communism, I'm not even strictly a pragmatist. I appreciate the need for idealism and idealistic solutions, but it's necessary to retain some sense of proportion here. What you're saying is that we don't need to ask people to have fewer children, because we can just have total, worldwide, economic upheaval instead. As though that were the easier solution, or more likely.
Ten billion is approximately five times as many people as the world can support, at a consumption rate equal to the average American. Unless your response is, "That's fine, we just need to make sure that the rest of the world stays poor." then you need to rethink your stance here.
This article is not saying that the claim is exaggerated. That's important, and it's easy to make that mistake. What this article is saying is that the claim could mean several different things. None of which are specified, but all of which are bad.
I guess the article's author felt that confusion on this point was worth writing about, though it seems unnecessary to me since the conclusion is the same regardless of specific way in which the data manifests.
Everything you see, hear, touch, or interact with shapes your world view. Not always in ways that are obvious, but none the less: always.
Don't blame this on Pai. Well... don't blame it all on Pai anyway. He's just the goon doing what he always said he'd do. Blame this on congress, who appointed appointed him specifically because he said he'd do this. If you allow Pai to become the fall guy, nothing will change.
The summary specifically says, 'Both gamers are now "awaiting trial on lesser charges," reports NBC.'
What gets me is: both? The intended victim is also awaiting trial? I'm sure there's some reason for that, I'm just curious.
What has led you to believe that Republicans are against this?
Though their nominal rate is 12.5%, they allow BER that results in an effective rate around 1%.
So right here you acknowledge that effective rate is different from nominal rate, and then you just go right on with this bullshit acting as though the US rate was 35%, and is now 21%. This is too transparent. I usually try to give people the benefit of a doubt, but you don't deserve it - you're clearly just trying to deceive people here.
The thing that really gets me is that this post is now three days old, and no one called you on this.