I'm not sure it helps yet. Have we found stars for which we are sure there are no planets around ? The current observations give a lower bound on the probability that a random star has a planet, but no higher bound. If every star has a planetary system, I don't see how it will help...
I once saw people hand-starting a critical hard-drive whose motor had failed. It was opened so they knew it would die quickly but they did it to quickly copy a few critical MB of acounting data.
Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation.
Exactly, and wikileaks doesn't have it because of the kind of people that were DDoSed.
Make no mistakes however. Websites is a minor way of Mastercard or Paypal to comunicate or to make business. Hell, I bet hundreds of journalists actively contacted them to allow them to communicate. So saying the aim of these attacks were to censor them is really a strange claim. These DDoS were a mere annoyance, a small protest in front of their HQ building. The most damage was PR.
A line has been crossed when a journalism website was hit by illegal pressure from governments. I think it is fair that protestors cross another line. The ball is in the governments side now. Escalation will now be their responsibility.
Also note that it took JAXA a few failed tries before managing to deploy correctly a solar sail. The fact that NASA failed its first one does not strike me as very surprising. What I find surprising however is that they don't seem to use the Japanese experience very much to prevent these failures...
Your comment makes me wonder if we ever had computer deadly problems that were really caused by a malfunction in a computer instead of a programming error.
Investments are indeed good and speculation is indeed bad. There is a blurry line between the two but a lot of cases are clear cut.
An investor tries to make money by choosing companies that are working in a way likely to cause a growth of its revenues. An investor chooses companies that are likely to be fashionable and to be bought by many people. The fact that its value is real or imaginary is of no concern to the speculator
Buffet was proposing 3 months IIRC. Forbidding a sale of something you bought less than three months ago.
In your example, well you have made a bad investment decision buying from Example Co and it is fair you get punished by trusting crooks. What would be unfair would be that investors that have offices closer to the stock exchange market would get more milliseconds to sell stocks.
If you can't sell in the second your stocks, you will take more time to examine the case, try to understand more deeply what it means for the company and if damages can be mitigated in order to minimize your losses within 3 months. In short, it can force you to help save a company instead of forcing its head deeper in the mud. That is the difference between a speculator and an investor.
Also, the kinect as it is today dose not easily allow combinations, but it is not hard to imagine different IR frequencies being used to prevent interference or even blinking patterne with a difference of phase.
I see a lot of similar reactions, but I have to wonder : don't you suppose it is sometimes useful to have a way to move data around on military computers ? It is not always convenient to have one usb-less internet-less computer for sensitive data and another computer for internet+usb. And even doing so only gives marginally more protection. If someone is a leaker and is left with a physical access to a computer that has access to sensitive data, preventing him from copying them is very hard unless you prevent opening the computer case completely.
Interestingly, most civilizations that developped near shorelines have flood myth and most inland civilization don't have it. Floods happen really frequently you know.
The value of a company doesn't change in a few milliseconds instantly. Making investment decisions on so short scales is not really investments. There has been many voices to call for a change in the way transactions are processed. Instead of a first-arrived-first-served approach, using a bigger time step, like a second or a minute (personally I don't see why a whole day would be bad) and randomizing the orders would smoothen the values and iron out the speculation.
It really looks like high-frequency trading doesn't improve the accuracy of prices. It increases its precisions but we don't really have a way to measure if it is meaningful. Converging to a precise number doesn't guarantee that this number isn't arbitrary. To be fair, it is hard to imagine that these small scale variations at very high frequency is anything more than noise.
And I may add that his kind of claims is made by people who "know nothing about the market", like Warren Buffet...
As a reminder, he asked for higher taxes for high incomes and to take measures against short-time speculation, which he apparently don't really like : "We believe that according the name 'investors' to institutions that trade actively is like calling someone who repeatedly engages in one-night stands a 'romantic.' "
These are exactly the two possible scenarios : an innovation renaissance or a RIAA-like entity preventing it. The shape of the young 21st century will heavily depend on what happens now and how we solve these "intellectual properties" issues about patents. Can we patent "design of X as outputable by a CNC" ? If so, the renaissance is in danger.
For years, wikileaks have been publicly publishing whistleblowing of high quality in the total indifference. Only when it began to close itlself, people got interested. Don't blame Assange, he is just trying to find the correct model.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they have bought themselves a "big and scary" flag the day they bring it down. Anyway, it was worth trying.
Seriously tough, I expect the boycott campaign before Christmas to hurt them more than a DDoS
The other important stat about terrorism : don't live in Iraq and you'll be safe.
Given the amateurism of most if not all recent attacks, and the only slightly better level of counter-terrorism, I would not bet on it
And thus, they won...
Yeah, isn't our century awesome ?
I'm not sure it helps yet. Have we found stars for which we are sure there are no planets around ? The current observations give a lower bound on the probability that a random star has a planet, but no higher bound. If every star has a planetary system, I don't see how it will help...
I once saw people hand-starting a critical hard-drive whose motor had failed. It was opened so they knew it would die quickly but they did it to quickly copy a few critical MB of acounting data.
Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation.
Exactly, and wikileaks doesn't have it because of the kind of people that were DDoSed.
Make no mistakes however. Websites is a minor way of Mastercard or Paypal to comunicate or to make business. Hell, I bet hundreds of journalists actively contacted them to allow them to communicate. So saying the aim of these attacks were to censor them is really a strange claim. These DDoS were a mere annoyance, a small protest in front of their HQ building. The most damage was PR.
A line has been crossed when a journalism website was hit by illegal pressure from governments. I think it is fair that protestors cross another line. The ball is in the governments side now. Escalation will now be their responsibility.
The Botnet Era (tm) has been brought to you by the Microsotf (tm) corporation. Glad you enjoyed it. Good luck escaping it.
Also note that it took JAXA a few failed tries before managing to deploy correctly a solar sail. The fact that NASA failed its first one does not strike me as very surprising. What I find surprising however is that they don't seem to use the Japanese experience very much to prevent these failures...
5. China
Your comment makes me wonder if we ever had computer deadly problems that were really caused by a malfunction in a computer instead of a programming error.
This is a denial of service.
Exactly. And this is why in this special case I find very hard to say that DDoS attacks are unfair.
Investments are indeed good and speculation is indeed bad. There is a blurry line between the two but a lot of cases are clear cut.
An investor tries to make money by choosing companies that are working in a way likely to cause a growth of its revenues. An investor chooses companies that are likely to be fashionable and to be bought by many people. The fact that its value is real or imaginary is of no concern to the speculator
Investors hate bubbles, speculators love them.
Buffet was proposing 3 months IIRC. Forbidding a sale of something you bought less than three months ago.
In your example, well you have made a bad investment decision buying from Example Co and it is fair you get punished by trusting crooks. What would be unfair would be that investors that have offices closer to the stock exchange market would get more milliseconds to sell stocks.
If you can't sell in the second your stocks, you will take more time to examine the case, try to understand more deeply what it means for the company and if damages can be mitigated in order to minimize your losses within 3 months. In short, it can force you to help save a company instead of forcing its head deeper in the mud. That is the difference between a speculator and an investor.
They confuse each other a bit, but you still can do some things :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-w7UXCAUJE
Also, the kinect as it is today dose not easily allow combinations, but it is not hard to imagine different IR frequencies being used to prevent interference or even blinking patterne with a difference of phase.
I see a lot of similar reactions, but I have to wonder : don't you suppose it is sometimes useful to have a way to move data around on military computers ? It is not always convenient to have one usb-less internet-less computer for sensitive data and another computer for internet+usb. And even doing so only gives marginally more protection. If someone is a leaker and is left with a physical access to a computer that has access to sensitive data, preventing him from copying them is very hard unless you prevent opening the computer case completely.
Interestingly, most civilizations that developped near shorelines have flood myth and most inland civilization don't have it. Floods happen really frequently you know.
The value of a company doesn't change in a few milliseconds instantly. Making investment decisions on so short scales is not really investments. There has been many voices to call for a change in the way transactions are processed. Instead of a first-arrived-first-served approach, using a bigger time step, like a second or a minute (personally I don't see why a whole day would be bad) and randomizing the orders would smoothen the values and iron out the speculation.
It really looks like high-frequency trading doesn't improve the accuracy of prices. It increases its precisions but we don't really have a way to measure if it is meaningful. Converging to a precise number doesn't guarantee that this number isn't arbitrary. To be fair, it is hard to imagine that these small scale variations at very high frequency is anything more than noise.
And I may add that his kind of claims is made by people who "know nothing about the market", like Warren Buffet...
As a reminder, he asked for higher taxes for high incomes and to take measures against short-time speculation, which he apparently don't really like :
"We believe that according the name 'investors' to institutions that trade actively is like calling someone who repeatedly engages in one-night stands a 'romantic.' "
True. The price the market set is more precisely set to the price the market sets.
The ability of the market to set its price to something meaningful is questionned not only by leftists but also by Nobel prizes of economy.
These are exactly the two possible scenarios : an innovation renaissance or a RIAA-like entity preventing it. The shape of the young 21st century will heavily depend on what happens now and how we solve these "intellectual properties" issues about patents. Can we patent "design of X as outputable by a CNC" ? If so, the renaissance is in danger.
Say, have you donated to EFF yet ?
People claim it is closing itself because it doesn't publish the whole 250 000 documents at once and instead goes through journalists and newspapers.
For years, wikileaks have been publicly publishing whistleblowing of high quality in the total indifference. Only when it began to close itlself, people got interested. Don't blame Assange, he is just trying to find the correct model.
Here comes the first Web Schism...