What's 'killing' Microsoft (and Microsoft is far from dying) is that Wall Street long ago cooked into the MS stock price the assumption that Windows would eventually displace all other operating systems.
That's one aspect of it. And an aspect that can't really kill MS, since MS doesn't depend on their stock price.
Another way MS is 'dying' (yet far from it) is in mindshare. The first reason people won't buy a phone running Windows is because on their mind Windows == low quality (never tried the real thing, I can't tell if this perception is real). At the 90's startup investors used to ask the founders what they'd do if MS entered their market, today that would be undestood as a joke. As the GP said, people are writting portable code, because they don't trust MS enough to depend on it. And now, MS is alienating the only segment that still had an opinion of them not bad enough to run away, by putting such a huge price on Windows for the OEMs, and directly competing with them.
Or, in a concise way, MS has gained a bad reputation, however you choose to define the word "reputation", and whatever you decide its market is. And that is the biggest threat to the company's survival.
And frankly, your" Just don't trade" silliness, is just stupid. I have funds in the stock market, and a lot of people do.
I really did not understand that. If by that you mean "a lot of people trade, and telling them to stop is useles"? If so, fuck those people, if they can't risk losing money and trade stocks, there is nothing anybody can do for them, besides telling them "if you can't afford losing money, don't trade". If they'll just ignore that, well...
But if by that you mean "I don't even know how to invest my money and not trade stocks", you deserve an answer. Funds quota seem to be a losing proposition. In theory you'd hire somebody way better at money management than you, he'd manage your money and get paid some of the earnings. In practice experts don't get an overall result much better than non-experts, some get but evaluating experts is quite hard. Also, there are some huge conflicts of interest on their profession. You must keep in mind that all those things that your fund does, you can do too. You can buy and sell bounds, stocks, etc, and you can allocate them in a way that fits your willigness to risk.
Brazil was a story about an amazingly incompetent government that so much fails at it's job as to take society down with it.
Doesn't matter what is more depressing. The question was about fiction, your book is out of scope. The judge is still out about 1984, but Brazil clearly can't participate on this contest.
You don't need to buy everything. You just need to buy some of it, and wait for people to realize the price is wrong.
If your hint is about Lehman Brothers bankrupcy, it's way off. They got bankrupt buying overpriced stuff. A more apt comparison would be somebody that got fully into stocks at the 2009 low, and sold them by 2010.
Bubbles just take years because your trade has hight friction. HTF is the tech that opens the opportunity of microssecond long bubbles (and panics) for us.
That is: the HTC reaction is based on the ones perception on the perception of the others - it is tolerable for low levels of "second hand perceptors" but... when the level of them is high, the risk of "computerized market panic" increases dramatically.
So, you mean that there is great oportunity for profit with anti-panicky bots?
If you don't want to face the risks of trading, you shouldn't trade. Period. What is wrong on your picture is that the trades were reversed. They shouldn't.
Stock fluctuations don't bring financial ruin to random companies, just for ompanies trading stocks or derivatives.
Now, about the actual topic. HFT is not a problem. High frequency cancelation of orders is. That's why everybody that researches HFT concludes it is not a problem, yet anybody can look at the market and see something is wrong.
And you think the EFF wrote an article completely aligned with its mission, that everybody with a minimum grasp of IT (not working for Oracle) agreed, including the judge, just because Google paid for it?
I'd not be surprized if Google donates to the EFF. (I'll just respect Google a bit more, but not yet as much as in the old times.) But you claim is ridiculous. You expect the EFF to be against the freedom to write software?
Most judges aren't as technicaly literate as Alsup, and will need help understanding the evidence. Some of that help does come from journalists and bloggers, wether we like it or not.
they do take highly partisan pro-corporation views...
Funny that in the end the facts agreed with the freetards' "highly partisan" view all the time untill now. Also, I don't even know where to start on that "pro-corporation" part. Have you ever read anything in GL?
Yep, anyway the judge may be curious about GL. Just not the way you think.
The set of heat waves studied on this paper can't be explained by chance. You you stud just a subset of them you'll reduce the significance of your set, and can quite well discover that your subset can be explained by chance.
It can not be a "local anomaly" because the heat waves have been observed in the entire planet. It is still an "anomaly", and that's why it must be explained.
It can either be a random event, or a non-random event. In the former case, nothing changed, you can move away, in the second case, it is caused by some thing (global warming being the most obvious suspect by a margin so huge that it doesn't make sense to put anything else on the list). This paper is exaclty about that, now we know with 3-sigma certainty (on that kind of research, that's enough to claim "we are certain") that it is non-random.
I think that if we as a global community can't come together to solve these issues then we deserve what we get.
Don't mind. The current style of madness has at most 50 years left, with ever decresing intensity starting any day now. It may be enough to turn the planet into a hell, but not enough to wipe our race from it.
I always tought there were distances there at the US and UK. I mean, as mind blowing crazy that General Relativity is, I don't think it allows any non-metric region.
People were paranoid at the Cold War, military like to destroy evidence (at any time), and somebody certainly made some mistake somewhere in that big project, and didn't want it to be doccumented.
The options aren't online vs ofline. They are local vs remote.
When the local gear fails, you lose both (or do you get your files by leacking the telephone cable?). When your (or your cloud's) connectivity fails, you lose just the remote.
I'm going to want to run more than just games so any version I use on my desktop will need a fully stocked package manager and at least a fairly typical LSB standard directory tree etc.
Chroot is great for that. If It try Steam, it will probably be in a quite restricted environment.
I'm a "only OSS" guy. You know, I don't remember meting somebody more radical than me about that (and that includes even Debian developers).
You know, I have a specific exclusion for games from that "only OSS" rule. Losing games doesn't hurt, therefore games are not important enough for me to care about. Get whatever is fun.
If Steam doesn't come with mandatory kernel modules, and if it doesn't phone home wuth suspicious data, I plan to give it a try. Well, if it phones home, it'll probably be sandboxed... Hell, I'll probably sandbox it anyway, but it is way better than running proprietary games through Wine.
It doesn't matter why. It only matters that they are embracing Linux.
Or do you think that all those companies that help write Linux, Apache, or whatever do that just because they have a good heart? They do that because their very business depend upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you use a tmpfs on /tmp?
About /var, I'd be willing to waste writes (you mean, burning out the memory, right?) on it.
That's one aspect of it. And an aspect that can't really kill MS, since MS doesn't depend on their stock price.
Another way MS is 'dying' (yet far from it) is in mindshare. The first reason people won't buy a phone running Windows is because on their mind Windows == low quality (never tried the real thing, I can't tell if this perception is real). At the 90's startup investors used to ask the founders what they'd do if MS entered their market, today that would be undestood as a joke. As the GP said, people are writting portable code, because they don't trust MS enough to depend on it. And now, MS is alienating the only segment that still had an opinion of them not bad enough to run away, by putting such a huge price on Windows for the OEMs, and directly competing with them.
Or, in a concise way, MS has gained a bad reputation, however you choose to define the word "reputation", and whatever you decide its market is. And that is the biggest threat to the company's survival.
I really did not understand that. If by that you mean "a lot of people trade, and telling them to stop is useles"? If so, fuck those people, if they can't risk losing money and trade stocks, there is nothing anybody can do for them, besides telling them "if you can't afford losing money, don't trade". If they'll just ignore that, well...
But if by that you mean "I don't even know how to invest my money and not trade stocks", you deserve an answer. Funds quota seem to be a losing proposition. In theory you'd hire somebody way better at money management than you, he'd manage your money and get paid some of the earnings. In practice experts don't get an overall result much better than non-experts, some get but evaluating experts is quite hard. Also, there are some huge conflicts of interest on their profession. You must keep in mind that all those things that your fund does, you can do too. You can buy and sell bounds, stocks, etc, and you can allocate them in a way that fits your willigness to risk.
Let me guess. It's the one that has guns and can lock you away?
Doesn't matter what is more depressing. The question was about fiction, your book is out of scope. The judge is still out about 1984, but Brazil clearly can't participate on this contest.
You don't need to buy everything. You just need to buy some of it, and wait for people to realize the price is wrong.
If your hint is about Lehman Brothers bankrupcy, it's way off. They got bankrupt buying overpriced stuff. A more apt comparison would be somebody that got fully into stocks at the 2009 low, and sold them by 2010.
Bubbles just take years because your trade has hight friction. HTF is the tech that opens the opportunity of microssecond long bubbles (and panics) for us.
Not a completely bad thing.
So, you mean that there is great oportunity for profit with anti-panicky bots?
If you don't want to face the risks of trading, you shouldn't trade. Period. What is wrong on your picture is that the trades were reversed. They shouldn't.
Stock fluctuations don't bring financial ruin to random companies, just for ompanies trading stocks or derivatives.
Now, about the actual topic. HFT is not a problem. High frequency cancelation of orders is. That's why everybody that researches HFT concludes it is not a problem, yet anybody can look at the market and see something is wrong.
And you think the EFF wrote an article completely aligned with its mission, that everybody with a minimum grasp of IT (not working for Oracle) agreed, including the judge, just because Google paid for it?
I'd not be surprized if Google donates to the EFF. (I'll just respect Google a bit more, but not yet as much as in the old times.) But you claim is ridiculous. You expect the EFF to be against the freedom to write software?
Most judges aren't as technicaly literate as Alsup, and will need help understanding the evidence. Some of that help does come from journalists and bloggers, wether we like it or not.
Funny that in the end the facts agreed with the freetards' "highly partisan" view all the time untill now. Also, I don't even know where to start on that "pro-corporation" part. Have you ever read anything in GL?
Yep, anyway the judge may be curious about GL. Just not the way you think.
The set of heat waves studied on this paper can't be explained by chance. You you stud just a subset of them you'll reduce the significance of your set, and can quite well discover that your subset can be explained by chance.
It can not be a "local anomaly" because the heat waves have been observed in the entire planet. It is still an "anomaly", and that's why it must be explained.
It can either be a random event, or a non-random event. In the former case, nothing changed, you can move away, in the second case, it is caused by some thing (global warming being the most obvious suspect by a margin so huge that it doesn't make sense to put anything else on the list). This paper is exaclty about that, now we know with 3-sigma certainty (on that kind of research, that's enough to claim "we are certain") that it is non-random.
Don't mind. The current style of madness has at most 50 years left, with ever decresing intensity starting any day now. It may be enough to turn the planet into a hell, but not enough to wipe our race from it.
I always tought there were distances there at the US and UK. I mean, as mind blowing crazy that General Relativity is, I don't think it allows any non-metric region.
People were paranoid at the Cold War, military like to destroy evidence (at any time), and somebody certainly made some mistake somewhere in that big project, and didn't want it to be doccumented.
There are probably other reasons that also apply.
The sad thing is that people are already talking about "local cloud".
The options aren't online vs ofline. They are local vs remote.
When the local gear fails, you lose both (or do you get your files by leacking the telephone cable?). When your (or your cloud's) connectivity fails, you lose just the remote.
Matrix teaches is way better teaching that. The GP is losing his time with back to the future.
Well, that's the third movie. Not exactly to the 20s, but near enough.
I don't.
Valve is already working with both nVidia and AMD to fix those issues. And other drivers (excluding video) already work.
Chroot is great for that. If It try Steam, it will probably be in a quite restricted environment.
I'm a "only OSS" guy. You know, I don't remember meting somebody more radical than me about that (and that includes even Debian developers).
You know, I have a specific exclusion for games from that "only OSS" rule. Losing games doesn't hurt, therefore games are not important enough for me to care about. Get whatever is fun.
If Steam doesn't come with mandatory kernel modules, and if it doesn't phone home wuth suspicious data, I plan to give it a try. Well, if it phones home, it'll probably be sandboxed... Hell, I'll probably sandbox it anyway, but it is way better than running proprietary games through Wine.
It doesn't matter why. It only matters that they are embracing Linux.
Or do you think that all those companies that help write Linux, Apache, or whatever do that just because they have a good heart? They do that because their very business depend upon it.