A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
That's the first "LOGICAL" reasoning you've put forth.
Those other things are economics too. But I have to agree that it's probably low natural gas prices.
Also, they still had a choice between closing the plant and merely shutting it down for a while and restarting later. That indicates they didn't think the economics on the plant would improve enough in the future to justify keeping it around. That may have been steered by the economics of anti-nuclear litigation and public opinion. Or it may be because they think electricity prices will stay depressed indefinitely.
The interior of the suit jacket is already occupied by the wallet.
Use another pocket then. Most pants have two or more. I find the bigger problem is that my phone starts dialing people. I guess I should get a clamshell phone to keep that from happening.
Having said that, I bet there are people who can't stand to have anything in their pockets. If they can tolerate wearing the smartphone in that situation, then that's a case where wearable works.
Eh, looking at the most pessimistic EIA cost columns in that list, I don't see the cost benefit increasing fast enough to justify your claim. We'll have to see how it works out. I would like it if the cost decline is more aggressive than forecast.
Well, at least the cost will be better for bargain hunters. They already can put together small economical systems with decent ROI.
You make the broad assumption that they were externalities in the first place. It's trivially easy to add costs to someone else's project which don't have any benefits to them. That happens a lot to nuclear power.
Yeah, but if the Department of Transportation came out saying it'll make certain driver behaviors mandatory instead of cameras, people would be up in arms crying socialism
The states already do that. This area is already adequately regulated.
And that's the inconvenient truth most people won't admit: that socialists are actually terrifyingly LOGICAL
Which completely explains all the clusterfucks they've done over the decades.
But justice gangs don't have to worry about the average citizen (and shouldn't). They need to control the real opposition which is the police.
The power of the average citizen is knowledge and real time awareness of what's going on. If the police know who and where to strike, if the witnesses to crime come forward to finger cartel targets, that's the end of the cartel.
Obviously, it's not happening at least very quickly. Another end state here is that one or more cartels becomes the new government.
It's been a problem as long as humans have been around. Just because someone can learn knowledge doesn't mean that they will do so. Just remember the saying about leading a horse to water.
IMHO moving virtual money around is more useful than most government funded research. I see increasing public spending on science (especially the "basic" science which explicitly is about doing things without any sort of measurable return on investment) as a means of keeping scientists from doing useful work.
And all that technology developed can be used for other extreme fast and noisy decision/control system problems.
Why bother? There aren't any significant problems associated with HFT, "idle" speculation, or hedging, even if you're the Royal Bank of Canada. And there's no way finance market will pay off the national debt. They aren't dumb.
No, parts of these huge orders were going to different exchanges.
Yes, that makes them different orders as a result. Just because it looks like one order on the trader's computer screen doesn't mean it was or could be implemented as one order behind the scenes. The article made it clear that these were different orders sent simultaneously to different exchanges. I otherwise agree with your characterization of the trade and its thwarting by HFT tactics.
Targeting individuals with smear attacks based on their political views is against the First Amendment of the Constitution
Only if it's by passage of law by US Congress or via actions of government actors at either the federal or state levels. Private individuals can "smear" without violating the US Constitution though they risk running afoul of slander/libel laws.
No, you stated you thought it was easier to manufacture a war than to manufacture a climate change crisis. I don't think you've thought that through at all. Pretending to do good climate research is easy when you control the funding and won't have to worry about the political fallout in your lifetime.
Exactly, and some groups of people are easier to scare than others.
Well, we have one such group with climate change. For example, we have people in this very forum wailing and gnashing their teeth because they think civilization will end in 50 years due to climate change.
But the summary's figure is far short of the figures of preventable deaths I heard
The thing is most of those deaths are preventable by driver behavior. If they aren't aware of what's behind or around them because they haven't bothered to look, that's not going to be helped by a camera that they're not looking at either.
I wonder who benefits from adding a cost of several hundred dollars per car.
Again, what I said about limit orders stands completely true. While it is true that they trade immediately when the price hits, in practice this means that they are in fact MUCH slower to execute than market orders. This also makes them WORTHLESS to do what the original poster claimed - preventing corrupt HFT from screwing over honest medium to large investors.
Seriously, don't you see the inherent contradictions in your post? Speed of execution doesn't matter since by the time the HFT trader gets the information, the trade is executing. You can't put an order ahead of an executing order unless you're doing something illegal. And it'd be so obvious that the SEC (or its Canadian counterpart) would have to get involved.
What was going on in the story would work just as well if they were using market orders or limit orders.
"They saw you order before they were executed and cancelled their bids."
No, they saw a related order on a different exchange. There isn't just one order here, but several that hit the various exchanges at different times.
You stand their arguing technicality which legally prevent the corrupt SOB's from going to jail, but I am not talking about technicalities, I am talking about practicalities and corruption. Just because something is technically legal does not mean it is not morally corrupt.
Corruption? That's nonsense. They aren't doing insider trading. They're trading on public market knowledge, but doing it so fast that they got into some markets before the rest of the orders could execute.
It's much easier to pretend "terrorists" will kill us all than pretending "global warming" will kill us all.
Why do you think that? They both look about the same in difficulty. It just depends on which constituents you're trying to scare. Some scare easily by terrorism, some by climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are assuming multiple conspiracies that align by coincidence?
No, using the same exploitation path. Like computer malware - a particularly large bunch of global conspiracy.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
That's the first "LOGICAL" reasoning you've put forth.
Those other things are economics too. But I have to agree that it's probably low natural gas prices.
Also, they still had a choice between closing the plant and merely shutting it down for a while and restarting later. That indicates they didn't think the economics on the plant would improve enough in the future to justify keeping it around. That may have been steered by the economics of anti-nuclear litigation and public opinion. Or it may be because they think electricity prices will stay depressed indefinitely.
I should have taken a closer look at that time axis. I hope you're right about the long term!
What if all companies released 3 bananas worth of radiation into the ground water per day, because there is no penalty?
Nothing would happen. That's the outcome of releasing insignificant amounts of radiation into the environment.
The interior of the suit jacket is already occupied by the wallet.
Use another pocket then. Most pants have two or more. I find the bigger problem is that my phone starts dialing people. I guess I should get a clamshell phone to keep that from happening.
Having said that, I bet there are people who can't stand to have anything in their pockets. If they can tolerate wearing the smartphone in that situation, then that's a case where wearable works.
No one - or at least no adult - dresses to impress the other people in the room when out on a date.
I guess then the problem is that there are a lot of non-adults in today's societies. You need to incorporate those into your model.
Eh, looking at the most pessimistic EIA cost columns in that list, I don't see the cost benefit increasing fast enough to justify your claim. We'll have to see how it works out. I would like it if the cost decline is more aggressive than forecast.
Well, at least the cost will be better for bargain hunters. They already can put together small economical systems with decent ROI.
You make the broad assumption that they were externalities in the first place. It's trivially easy to add costs to someone else's project which don't have any benefits to them. That happens a lot to nuclear power.
But it is a shortening of the new scope of the project.
Yeah, but if the Department of Transportation came out saying it'll make certain driver behaviors mandatory instead of cameras, people would be up in arms crying socialism
The states already do that. This area is already adequately regulated.
And that's the inconvenient truth most people won't admit: that socialists are actually terrifyingly LOGICAL
Which completely explains all the clusterfucks they've done over the decades.
But justice gangs don't have to worry about the average citizen (and shouldn't). They need to control the real opposition which is the police.
The power of the average citizen is knowledge and real time awareness of what's going on. If the police know who and where to strike, if the witnesses to crime come forward to finger cartel targets, that's the end of the cartel.
Obviously, it's not happening at least very quickly. Another end state here is that one or more cartels becomes the new government.
No, these deaths are very preventable with a camera.
IMHO most of these deaths are very preventable just with a minor change in driver behavior. A rear-view camera isn't a fix for that.
Here they are trying to be transparent
No, they aren't. They only admit what gets revealed.
It's been a problem as long as humans have been around. Just because someone can learn knowledge doesn't mean that they will do so. Just remember the saying about leading a horse to water.
IMHO moving virtual money around is more useful than most government funded research. I see increasing public spending on science (especially the "basic" science which explicitly is about doing things without any sort of measurable return on investment) as a means of keeping scientists from doing useful work.
And all that technology developed can be used for other extreme fast and noisy decision/control system problems.
Why bother? There aren't any significant problems associated with HFT, "idle" speculation, or hedging, even if you're the Royal Bank of Canada. And there's no way finance market will pay off the national debt. They aren't dumb.
No, parts of these huge orders were going to different exchanges.
Yes, that makes them different orders as a result. Just because it looks like one order on the trader's computer screen doesn't mean it was or could be implemented as one order behind the scenes. The article made it clear that these were different orders sent simultaneously to different exchanges. I otherwise agree with your characterization of the trade and its thwarting by HFT tactics.
Since you are assuming a global conspiracy, you think every government in the world attempts to scare its people in the same way at the same time.
That's a non sequitur not a giggle test. There can be more than one global conspiracy.
Targeting individuals with smear attacks based on their political views is against the First Amendment of the Constitution
Only if it's by passage of law by US Congress or via actions of government actors at either the federal or state levels. Private individuals can "smear" without violating the US Constitution though they risk running afoul of slander/libel laws.
I already explained it in my previous post.
No, you stated you thought it was easier to manufacture a war than to manufacture a climate change crisis. I don't think you've thought that through at all. Pretending to do good climate research is easy when you control the funding and won't have to worry about the political fallout in your lifetime.
Exactly, and some groups of people are easier to scare than others.
Well, we have one such group with climate change. For example, we have people in this very forum wailing and gnashing their teeth because they think civilization will end in 50 years due to climate change.
But the summary's figure is far short of the figures of preventable deaths I heard
The thing is most of those deaths are preventable by driver behavior. If they aren't aware of what's behind or around them because they haven't bothered to look, that's not going to be helped by a camera that they're not looking at either.
I wonder who benefits from adding a cost of several hundred dollars per car.
Again, what I said about limit orders stands completely true. While it is true that they trade immediately when the price hits, in practice this means that they are in fact MUCH slower to execute than market orders. This also makes them WORTHLESS to do what the original poster claimed - preventing corrupt HFT from screwing over honest medium to large investors.
Seriously, don't you see the inherent contradictions in your post? Speed of execution doesn't matter since by the time the HFT trader gets the information, the trade is executing. You can't put an order ahead of an executing order unless you're doing something illegal. And it'd be so obvious that the SEC (or its Canadian counterpart) would have to get involved.
What was going on in the story would work just as well if they were using market orders or limit orders.
"They saw you order before they were executed and cancelled their bids."
No, they saw a related order on a different exchange. There isn't just one order here, but several that hit the various exchanges at different times.
You stand their arguing technicality which legally prevent the corrupt SOB's from going to jail, but I am not talking about technicalities, I am talking about practicalities and corruption. Just because something is technically legal does not mean it is not morally corrupt.
Corruption? That's nonsense. They aren't doing insider trading. They're trading on public market knowledge, but doing it so fast that they got into some markets before the rest of the orders could execute.
It's much easier to pretend "terrorists" will kill us all than pretending "global warming" will kill us all.
Why do you think that? They both look about the same in difficulty. It just depends on which constituents you're trying to scare. Some scare easily by terrorism, some by climate change.