The first instance is a covered short--the producer is selling something that they already know they will produce next year (cotton). It is a great example of why covered shorts are useful, something I would not argue against. You are the second person to point out the usefulness of covered shorts in response to my request for a useful uncovered short.
As for the yarn industry, it really has no bearing on the question of derivatives. I know of no derivative that offers protection against government regulation, but presumably you can see why there are all sorts of problems with allowing that type of contract, right?
Similar to a farmer selling products they are planting (and have not yet produced), your first example is a covered short and there is a natural buyer and seller.
In the second case is not as well defined (who sells these). Clearly the bank is a natural buyer, but who is the natural seller? The way you described it, the seller is essentially accepting the same risk that the bank doesn't want to, nothing has happened but a passing of the buck. The seller is essentially contracting dealing with customers for 1% on their money. But now the seller looks a lot more like a insurance company than a bank because they have accepted a bunch of long term risk. If they sell lots of these contracts, it is like selling too much hurricane insurance or flood insrance in one small area--but there is no other area, world finance markets are essentially all one. They have no method of insuring this risk except to have massive stores of cash, like an insurance company.
Again, uncovered shorts are just insurance and should be regulated as such.
So it's just a "free markets = pareto improvement" argument, you've got nothing more than that? I'm going to assume that you know some economics and point out that there is no reason a Walrasian auctioneer needs some players to select negative quantities of some goods. In English, efficient markets have no need for people to use uncovered shorts.
Did it ever occur to you that all of the benefit comes from annualized bonuses for agents who play with principal's long run investments?
Okay, I'll take the bait. Setting aside covered shorts, name a derivative that is useful to our society. My stance is that uncovered shorts are, essentially insurance and should be regulated as such.
Meh, interest rates not as good as my local bank, which allows me to pay all my bills online. The one thing I don't like is that I can't stop ACH without stopping all checks and online bill payment too.
As of 10.5 (earlier?) this can not be turned off that I can see in keyboard OR using the hot keys you suggest. I can always hit command-space to open spotlight and command tab to open the application browser.
You are missing many, may tricks. I almost never take my hands of the KB when using OS X. Here are two to start you with: command tab switches applications, command tilde switches windows within an app. But in the end I think he was saying that the shell is always a faster way to do things, and this is as true in OS X as it is in any *nix.
Hmm, a double has 64 bits, where do the last 12 go? You said, "The people who complain about it are the computer programmers who are trying to use 64-bit exact fields to merge two datasets etc." I'd expect the RDBMS to merge the two datasets.
If you really want it mast two columns, one that is j mod 2^31 and j/2^31 (which is an annoying hack, I'll admit).
BTW, S stood for statistician, I was trying to explain why I didn't get your complaint.
This is an absolute comparison. Imagine comparing numbers such that a * me (machine epsilon) GT 0.00001, then b = a * (1+me) will not be nearlyEqual to a, but it is the closest number to a, so only a exactly will be nearlyEqual to a for any a of the type described. (my greater/less operators got dropped too despite my selected "text" entry format, so I used GT).
But this has its own problems. I think going over why each one is wrong is the best idea. Because sometimes the objection doesn't apply, and it gives you and idea why nearlyEqual is never globally a good idea.
Consider a and b=a*(1+30*me), where me is the machine epsilon, then if you have c = b-a, it has about 2 digits of accuracy and should be treated as such. But you have to know the history of c to know that.
No, it is still wrong. Part of the problem is that it is impossible for it to be right without an estimate for epsilon for a and b. But lets set that aside, because any general algorithm is going to have to.
What you are doing is saying that a and b are nearly equal when abs(log(a) - log(b)) -5 and then you try to deal with log(0). There are other problems. In addition, you didn't deal with log(0) corretly. Notice first that nearlyEqual(a,b) need not equal nearlyEqual(b,a), this is probably a property you are going to want.
In addition, you didn't deal with numbers on opposite sides of zero well. If a and b are equal to the positive float closest to zero and the negative float closest to zero you will call these not nearly equal. At the same time, epsilon and the float nearest to zero you would have called nearly equal. But I'd say there is a much better argument for the first pair being nearly equal.
While your algorithm would say that plank's constant (6.6E-34) and the inverse speed of light in a vacuum (3.33E-9) are the same. You just underscore the fact that it isn't easy to write a good nearlyEqual. But I would expect the author of an article on the topic to write a good one. After all, it is what people are most likely to go to look for.
Looking for where I said it is not an ARM chip... nope, can't find it.
The descriptions reads, "ARM makes the processor chips that power Apple's iPad." I think the OP was saying this is not correct. At any rate, the chip was designed by Apple using the ARM using the architecture, the same as how AMD designs chips using x86.
Just like how Athlon's x86 architecture means it was made by Intel? It only means that it was *licensed* from the company that invented the technology.
It wasn't a rhetorical question, so thanks for answering. I actually found a Cato piece from 1984 about local government sponsored cable monopoly. Their argument was that there were two places that didn't regulate and they got very little in return. i.e. Pheonix didn't regulate and it got two cable providers (yay, just like everyone else!). I think we now have a competitive market in cable/satellite and it's just not so good. Even in NYC where costs aren't that large for installing cable/fiber/satellite options, prices are through the roof and there is lots of players.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, you are the third (fourth?) person to point to a covered short. Something I specifically said I think is valuable.
So, I'd love to hear about an uncovered short that is valuable.
The first instance is a covered short--the producer is selling something that they already know they will produce next year (cotton). It is a great example of why covered shorts are useful, something I would not argue against. You are the second person to point out the usefulness of covered shorts in response to my request for a useful uncovered short.
As for the yarn industry, it really has no bearing on the question of derivatives. I know of no derivative that offers protection against government regulation, but presumably you can see why there are all sorts of problems with allowing that type of contract, right?
Similar to a farmer selling products they are planting (and have not yet produced), your first example is a covered short and there is a natural buyer and seller.
In the second case is not as well defined (who sells these). Clearly the bank is a natural buyer, but who is the natural seller? The way you described it, the seller is essentially accepting the same risk that the bank doesn't want to, nothing has happened but a passing of the buck. The seller is essentially contracting dealing with customers for 1% on their money. But now the seller looks a lot more like a insurance company than a bank because they have accepted a bunch of long term risk. If they sell lots of these contracts, it is like selling too much hurricane insurance or flood insrance in one small area--but there is no other area, world finance markets are essentially all one. They have no method of insuring this risk except to have massive stores of cash, like an insurance company.
Again, uncovered shorts are just insurance and should be regulated as such.
So it's just a "free markets = pareto improvement" argument, you've got nothing more than that? I'm going to assume that you know some economics and point out that there is no reason a Walrasian auctioneer needs some players to select negative quantities of some goods. In English, efficient markets have no need for people to use uncovered shorts.
Did it ever occur to you that all of the benefit comes from annualized bonuses for agents who play with principal's long run investments?
Okay, I'll take the bait. Setting aside covered shorts, name a derivative that is useful to our society. My stance is that uncovered shorts are, essentially insurance and should be regulated as such.
Meh, interest rates not as good as my local bank, which allows me to pay all my bills online. The one thing I don't like is that I can't stop ACH without stopping all checks and online bill payment too.
Find a review that says the UI slow.
I don't come to the comment page for this type of article to read this kind of comment. I read these comments to see flame bait and trolling.
Oh, I see, I had been wishing for that, I'm glad I've finally had it pointed out to me. Thanks!
As of 10.5 (earlier?) this can not be turned off that I can see in keyboard OR using the hot keys you suggest. I can always hit command-space to open spotlight and command tab to open the application browser.
You are missing many, may tricks. I almost never take my hands of the KB when using OS X. Here are two to start you with: command tab switches applications, command tilde switches windows within an app. But in the end I think he was saying that the shell is always a faster way to do things, and this is as true in OS X as it is in any *nix.
Ah, I see. The data could be stored, but it is cast "correctly." Well, right tool for the job, I guess.
Hmm, a double has 64 bits, where do the last 12 go? You said, "The people who complain about it are the computer programmers who are trying to use 64-bit exact fields to merge two datasets etc." I'd expect the RDBMS to merge the two datasets.
If you really want it mast two columns, one that is j mod 2^31 and j/2^31 (which is an annoying hack, I'll admit).
BTW, S stood for statistician, I was trying to explain why I didn't get your complaint.
I don't understand. Why doesn't your RDBMS take care of that?
Alternately, couldn't you just split it in two columns and merge on A and B instead of just A?
For the record, IAAS
This is an absolute comparison. Imagine comparing numbers such that a * me (machine epsilon) GT 0.00001, then b = a * (1+me) will not be nearlyEqual to a, but it is the closest number to a, so only a exactly will be nearlyEqual to a for any a of the type described. (my greater/less operators got dropped too despite my selected "text" entry format, so I used GT).
The fix is to do
|a-b| / [|a| + |b| + epsilon]
But this has its own problems. I think going over why each one is wrong is the best idea. Because sometimes the objection doesn't apply, and it gives you and idea why nearlyEqual is never globally a good idea.
Consider a and b=a*(1+30*me), where me is the machine epsilon, then if you have c = b-a, it has about 2 digits of accuracy and should be treated as such. But you have to know the history of c to know that.
Okay, you are (mostly) right, but what about when a = -b? I think you might want
|a-b| / [|a| + |b|]
now the only special case is when a=b=0.
No, it is still wrong. Part of the problem is that it is impossible for it to be right without an estimate for epsilon for a and b. But lets set that aside, because any general algorithm is going to have to.
What you are doing is saying that a and b are nearly equal when abs(log(a) - log(b)) -5 and then you try to deal with log(0). There are other problems. In addition, you didn't deal with log(0) corretly. Notice first that nearlyEqual(a,b) need not equal nearlyEqual(b,a), this is probably a property you are going to want.
In addition, you didn't deal with numbers on opposite sides of zero well. If a and b are equal to the positive float closest to zero and the negative float closest to zero you will call these not nearly equal. At the same time, epsilon and the float nearest to zero you would have called nearly equal. But I'd say there is a much better argument for the first pair being nearly equal.
Your criticism is correct.
While your algorithm would say that plank's constant (6.6E-34) and the inverse speed of light in a vacuum (3.33E-9) are the same. You just underscore the fact that it isn't easy to write a good nearlyEqual. But I would expect the author of an article on the topic to write a good one. After all, it is what people are most likely to go to look for.
Thanks, that makes lots of sense!
I also find it hard to believe that someone would name a spectrometer designed to measure gammas the "alpha spectrometer."
Looking for where I said it is not an ARM chip... nope, can't find it.
The descriptions reads, "ARM makes the processor chips that power Apple's iPad." I think the OP was saying this is not correct. At any rate, the chip was designed by Apple using the ARM using the architecture, the same as how AMD designs chips using x86.
Right buy the submitter claims that ARM makes the chip. But they don't. They just own the IP.
Just like how Athlon's x86 architecture means it was made by Intel? It only means that it was *licensed* from the company that invented the technology.
It wasn't a rhetorical question, so thanks for answering. I actually found a Cato piece from 1984 about local government sponsored cable monopoly. Their argument was that there were two places that didn't regulate and they got very little in return. i.e. Pheonix didn't regulate and it got two cable providers (yay, just like everyone else!). I think we now have a competitive market in cable/satellite and it's just not so good. Even in NYC where costs aren't that large for installing cable/fiber/satellite options, prices are through the roof and there is lots of players.