There's a much better way to stop it, actually: Tax each trade $0.01 per share. This isn't a significant burden on typical investors - you make a few trades of $10000 a year, you pay only a fraction of that in tax. But it is a big deal for the HFTs who are trading millions of shares a day trying to profit off of 10 cent differences.
In theory, what Wall St is supposed to produce is investment directed at useful activity - for instance, if making solar panels is useful, and making fake cold fusion devices is not, Wall St is supposed to ensure that the solar panel company gets investment capital to make more solar panels while the cold fusion company does not.
In practice, this doesn't happen as well as it should because many investors are stupid and believe the hype (e.g. Facebook IPO), and even more try to profit off of other people believing the hype by successfully selling securities for more than they're worth.
If Elizabeth ever withheld the Royal Assent (which has essentially never been done) then that'd be the end of the monarchy.
Or the end of Parliament, depending on how popular the bill was that she stopped. If, say, the Commons passed a bill that would execute the first-born male child in every household or something similarly outrageous, and Elizabeth refused assent, I doubt it would be the monarchy that was in trouble.
Alternately, the chock under the wheel is that it's much cheaper to use the groundwater. Of course, this might be disastrous in the long run, but it's easy to show that economics pays pretty much no attention at all to the long run.
I could do that: 1. Place semiautomatic in the hands of a standing Barbie doll. 2. Raise riding lawnmower blades as high as possible. 3. Drive the lawnmower over the doll.
the monarchy was already a pretty powerless figurehead
Yes and no. Yes, Parliament was primarily responsible for the taxes, but the King at the time did have significant sway over national policy, including appointing Prime Ministers that didn't always have the support of Parliament. Even now, Elizabeth II has some sway over the government, and could in theory refuse to allow a bill that has passed Parliament from becoming law.
That's easy: I choose to accept all evidence that fits my predefined worldview (whatever that may be), and pretend any contradicting evidence doesn't exist or is incorrect.
Hey, it works for a lot of other things, why should AGW be any different?
Reminds me of George Carlin talking about the magazines for absolutely everything, including Walking: "Here's a great article, putting one foot in front of the other!"
Another rule here is out-of-sight-out-of-mind: If management can't actually see the effects of what's going on, they don't care how good it is, which is why UIs can be fantastic while the backend completely sucks.
Lots of things are more controversial than a particular politician (e.g. pretty much anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). With politicians' pages, the New York Times actually ran an article on a Hillary Clinton supporter that was "protecting" her page from criticism by reverting any negative edits he could find.
2. Also noted in my source, the purity has gone up, so the same amount of drug is more of the active ingredient than it once was.
3. An addict will spend whatever it takes to get their fix. If all the grocery stores in your area tripled their prices, you'd pay that price (or move) rather than going hungry. It's the same story here.
Here's the difference between cap-and-trade and regulation: Cap-and-trade says you have to not pollute more than your pollution credits allow, but doesn't tell you how to do it. By "regulation", I mean the EPA adding a rule like "All smokestacks will have scrubber devices that conform to standard EC3-B7" and sending inspectors out to enforce that.
The difference between the two regimes is cap-and-trade doesn't mandate how you solve your pollution problem, just that you solve it.
We've tried that. We've spent billions attempting to stop drug dealers and traffickers. We've changed the laws to allow cops to break into suspected dealer's homes without knocking at 3 AM (occasionally killing innocent people who think they're being attacked by criminals and start fighting back). We've tried 3-strikes provisions so that repeat offenders are in jail forever. We've tried going to the countries where this stuff is grown and shooting people. We've tried all sorts of attempts at brutality, and none of it has led to the slightest drop in drug use or the potency of available drugs.
Two obvious responses: 1. If I'm a top-caliber talent, all other things being equal, I'll work for the company that's coddling me rather than one that's treating me like I'm a prisoner. And even if I'm middle-tier, I'm going to want to work for you, which means you have more applicants to choose from and can afford to be more picky. 2. If I'm a top-caliber talent, but am at a company that treats me badly or indifferently, I'm not going to give my top effort to the company, I'm going to give my top effort on either some side project of my own or finding a new job, while treading water at my day job.
Either way, you treat your employees better, you tend to get better results from them.
You may laugh, but remember that little dust-up with The SCO Group over precisely that claim? When it came time to actually show some evidence, they pointed to the identical lines in the header APIs that were part of the published Unix standards.
You mean like how the government use to print bibles to be used in teaching in schools but due to hyper-political correctness stopped?
You must be reading or listening to David Barton, because he's the one that recently popularized that completely bogus claim: No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools Chris Rodda is an actual historian with real credentials who's repeatedly demonstrated that Barton is at best wildly misinterpreting evidence, and at worst is a fraud (No, I'm not someone who believes everything on HuffPo, in this case it's right).
The lack of Bibles in school is a clear part of the First Amendment: You don't make everyone else's kids read the Bible, we don't make your kids read the Koran or Rig Vedas. If you want your kids to learn the Bible, teach it to them at home or in church, but a public school cannot support particular religious texts.
In my experience, the majority of mods are conscientious, but there are a few abusers out there. I'm reasonably certain (based on what I've occasionally seen happen to my posts) that there are a few people or organizations out there with enough accounts to have a bunch with mod points, and then will suppress a comment by putting in enough "-1 Overrated" mods to leave the comment as "-1 Insightful" and the like. Global warming is one of those issues that attracts both commenters and mods with axes to grind.
Hence the additional admonition for mods to browse at -1 to watch out for abuses.
The idea usually tossed around regarding CO2 emissions is a cap-and-trade system, modelled after the system created for SO2. That approach was to use market incentives rather than lots of regulations to get companies to reduce their emissions, and it's generally been a success in reducing acid rain. It was conceived of by civil servants at the EPA, but became law only in 1990 with the support of that well-known liberal George H.W. Bush. How exactly is that a "left's statist wet dream"?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a much better way to stop it, actually: Tax each trade $0.01 per share. This isn't a significant burden on typical investors - you make a few trades of $10000 a year, you pay only a fraction of that in tax. But it is a big deal for the HFTs who are trading millions of shares a day trying to profit off of 10 cent differences.
This is of course not my idea: Tobin Tax
In theory, what Wall St is supposed to produce is investment directed at useful activity - for instance, if making solar panels is useful, and making fake cold fusion devices is not, Wall St is supposed to ensure that the solar panel company gets investment capital to make more solar panels while the cold fusion company does not.
In practice, this doesn't happen as well as it should because many investors are stupid and believe the hype (e.g. Facebook IPO), and even more try to profit off of other people believing the hype by successfully selling securities for more than they're worth.
Ditto for me. I figure with the way things are going, scenic Cleveland, Ohio could become prime tropical coastline.
If Elizabeth ever withheld the Royal Assent (which has essentially never been done) then that'd be the end of the monarchy.
Or the end of Parliament, depending on how popular the bill was that she stopped. If, say, the Commons passed a bill that would execute the first-born male child in every household or something similarly outrageous, and Elizabeth refused assent, I doubt it would be the monarchy that was in trouble.
Alternately, the chock under the wheel is that it's much cheaper to use the groundwater. Of course, this might be disastrous in the long run, but it's easy to show that economics pays pretty much no attention at all to the long run.
I could do that:
1. Place semiautomatic in the hands of a standing Barbie doll.
2. Raise riding lawnmower blades as high as possible.
3. Drive the lawnmower over the doll.
the monarchy was already a pretty powerless figurehead
Yes and no. Yes, Parliament was primarily responsible for the taxes, but the King at the time did have significant sway over national policy, including appointing Prime Ministers that didn't always have the support of Parliament. Even now, Elizabeth II has some sway over the government, and could in theory refuse to allow a bill that has passed Parliament from becoming law.
You misunderstood - he's just announcing that the history is in chronological order.
Once and for all!
That's easy: I choose to accept all evidence that fits my predefined worldview (whatever that may be), and pretend any contradicting evidence doesn't exist or is incorrect.
Hey, it works for a lot of other things, why should AGW be any different?
Reminds me of George Carlin talking about the magazines for absolutely everything, including Walking: "Here's a great article, putting one foot in front of the other!"
Another rule here is out-of-sight-out-of-mind: If management can't actually see the effects of what's going on, they don't care how good it is, which is why UIs can be fantastic while the backend completely sucks.
Because it was Valentine's Day, he wanted to do something both geeky and romantic, he knew Kathleen would see it, and she said "yes".
640 MB ought to be enough for anybody!
Lots of things are more controversial than a particular politician (e.g. pretty much anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). With politicians' pages, the New York Times actually ran an article on a Hillary Clinton supporter that was "protecting" her page from criticism by reverting any negative edits he could find.
Also on the subject of Harlan Ellison, I've always been thoroughly depressed by "Repent Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman.
Sadly, also not running this year are General Zod nor Senator Kelly (although I'm sure some think that Obama and Romney are both mutants).
Do you really believe that? it's driven up costs ...
1. No it hasn't
2. Also noted in my source, the purity has gone up, so the same amount of drug is more of the active ingredient than it once was.
3. An addict will spend whatever it takes to get their fix. If all the grocery stores in your area tripled their prices, you'd pay that price (or move) rather than going hungry. It's the same story here.
Here's the difference between cap-and-trade and regulation: Cap-and-trade says you have to not pollute more than your pollution credits allow, but doesn't tell you how to do it. By "regulation", I mean the EPA adding a rule like "All smokestacks will have scrubber devices that conform to standard EC3-B7" and sending inspectors out to enforce that.
The difference between the two regimes is cap-and-trade doesn't mandate how you solve your pollution problem, just that you solve it.
What we need is to be more brutal.
We've tried that. We've spent billions attempting to stop drug dealers and traffickers. We've changed the laws to allow cops to break into suspected dealer's homes without knocking at 3 AM (occasionally killing innocent people who think they're being attacked by criminals and start fighting back). We've tried 3-strikes provisions so that repeat offenders are in jail forever. We've tried going to the countries where this stuff is grown and shooting people. We've tried all sorts of attempts at brutality, and none of it has led to the slightest drop in drug use or the potency of available drugs.
It's done nothing to reduce drug abuse.
Two obvious responses:
1. If I'm a top-caliber talent, all other things being equal, I'll work for the company that's coddling me rather than one that's treating me like I'm a prisoner. And even if I'm middle-tier, I'm going to want to work for you, which means you have more applicants to choose from and can afford to be more picky.
2. If I'm a top-caliber talent, but am at a company that treats me badly or indifferently, I'm not going to give my top effort to the company, I'm going to give my top effort on either some side project of my own or finding a new job, while treading water at my day job.
Either way, you treat your employees better, you tend to get better results from them.
Yeah, just like Linux and WINE are rip-offs.
You may laugh, but remember that little dust-up with The SCO Group over precisely that claim? When it came time to actually show some evidence, they pointed to the identical lines in the header APIs that were part of the published Unix standards.
You mean like how the government use to print bibles to be used in teaching in schools but due to hyper-political correctness stopped?
You must be reading or listening to David Barton, because he's the one that recently popularized that completely bogus claim:
No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools
Chris Rodda is an actual historian with real credentials who's repeatedly demonstrated that Barton is at best wildly misinterpreting evidence, and at worst is a fraud (No, I'm not someone who believes everything on HuffPo, in this case it's right).
The lack of Bibles in school is a clear part of the First Amendment: You don't make everyone else's kids read the Bible, we don't make your kids read the Koran or Rig Vedas. If you want your kids to learn the Bible, teach it to them at home or in church, but a public school cannot support particular religious texts.
In my experience, the majority of mods are conscientious, but there are a few abusers out there. I'm reasonably certain (based on what I've occasionally seen happen to my posts) that there are a few people or organizations out there with enough accounts to have a bunch with mod points, and then will suppress a comment by putting in enough "-1 Overrated" mods to leave the comment as "-1 Insightful" and the like. Global warming is one of those issues that attracts both commenters and mods with axes to grind.
Hence the additional admonition for mods to browse at -1 to watch out for abuses.
The idea usually tossed around regarding CO2 emissions is a cap-and-trade system, modelled after the system created for SO2. That approach was to use market incentives rather than lots of regulations to get companies to reduce their emissions, and it's generally been a success in reducing acid rain. It was conceived of by civil servants at the EPA, but became law only in 1990 with the support of that well-known liberal George H.W. Bush. How exactly is that a "left's statist wet dream"?