You don't need to quantize the buy/sell process. Just impose a minimum hold time after initial purchase. Requiring a 1-second hold puts a strong limit on how much damage the HFT guys can cause, but is invisible to anyone else. Once you're past the 1-second minimum, your trade may be executed immediately. You don't need to restrict the buying part of the transaction, just the sell. The HFT guys will squeal like a stuck pig, only because it limits their ability to rape the brokerage system. (Yeah, I'm certain it's not this simple, especially considering all the imaginary financial transactions like puts, calls, options, warrants, derivatives, etc.)
I have 15+ years of motorcycle seat time. I have had zero accidents, though I did drop my scoot on it's side twice (parking lot low-sides.) As a passenger, I've been in 9 or 10 car accidents in my life. I've lost count. I know one person who died on a motorcycle. I know three people who died in car accidents. Seems that being on the road, regardless of vehicle, is essentially suicide (even if you won't admit it.) We should ban all forms of motor vehicle. Hell, ban the bicycles and skateboards, too. And people who walk with canes... they could fall and impale themselves or others. Damn, the world is a dangerous place. Maybe we should ban the world.
There's a clue in the previous post that I believe you've missed. Re-read that part about "parts of my body dragging along the ground." (Hint: this is generally done in a controlled environment.)
Other activities that *could* kill you:
- Crossing the street (walking on a street full of cars is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Un-jamming the toaster with a metal knife (messing with electrical appliances is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Eating sushi (eating raw meat is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Skydiving (jumping from a perfectly servicable aircraft is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
I don't appreciate others trying to protect me from myself. Where would you propose that I ride my motorcycle? In your bathtub? (now *that* would be stupid.)
Well, considering when this historical document was written, the State Governors could call up a militia from the able-bodied population. When you were called to duty, you were also expected to bring your long arm with you. So yes, the common man would have expected to have access to cutting-edge military technology of the time.
In modern times, we restrict sales of certain items to government or law enforcement agencies only. That's consistent with maintenance of a standing army (I'm not expected to bring my long arm and ammunition to boot camp should I enlist.) Unfortunately, there's a huge middle ground of contestable items - from machine guns to suppressors - that initiate frothing emotional debates from very opinionated folks. It doesn't help when BATFE classifies copper pot scrubbers and shoe laces as "firearms."
JudgeBot: Citizen, you are charged with "intent to speed." How do you plead?
You: Uhm, you Honor, I plead "nuh uh." I was on a bicycle on an uphill incline where the posted limit is 65 mph. How could I possibly speed?
JudgeBot: Citizen, your statement provides no merit against the charge. TrafficCamera19203-Z is a sworn officer of the court, and his observation of your intention to speed is admissible as evidence to this court. [gavel BANG!] The court finds you guitly. Bailiff, please escort this Citizen to the Payment Processor.
Funny, I was stumbling through some Private Snafu shorts last night, and watched this gem. I find it very interesting to look back at the films from the WWII era and see how much (or how little) society has changed.
As for the Bavarians camping on Mein Kampf, you'd think that they would have figured out that most parents have - the more you demonize something (alcohol, MJ, sex et al), the more the teenagers will find it appealing. If they want to destroy the financial incentive associated with the work, release it GPL-style. Make sure derivative works have to be GPL'd as well. Just stuffing the master copy under a mattress is ineffective.
I guess he just threw a rock to see what would happen at some point.
So your version of God isn't all-knowing and all-powerful? I'm not buying that a God who is capable of creating billions of planets, stars, and systems wouldn't have a firm grasp on probability and interstellar trajectories. Maybe we should consider that your God is bored (he does control everything, right?) and has set up the universe as a giant Rube Goldberg machine for His entertainment. He would have to accede to non-interference for the exercise to have any value.
Funny, I can buy a house "used" and not be obligated to pay the original builder a dime. A house can even appreciate in value beyond the original purchase price. The original developer still gets nothing from the profits of the sale. There is no grand conspiracy to deprive house builders of something they're owed, because they aren't owed squat.
This is just another example of software companies trying to cherry-pick the distinction between "owned" and "licensed." Your CD is scratched and won't read anymore? Sorry, you own the product and you'll need to buy another one as a replacement. Oh, you want to sell the product to someone else? Nope, you didn't really buy it, you purchased a license which isn't transferrable. Unadulterated cash-grab, it is.
So, you're in a position to guarantee that Gawker et al. are going to implement the authentication mechanism to the theoretically-correct ruleset? I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say "I think not."
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but people are the weakest link in any security method. I can easily see the following scenario unfold:
Boss: I'm getting complaints about people being unable to log in.
ITGuy: They're probably running pop-up blockers.
Boss: So?
ITGuy: You need to tell our visitors to allow pop-ups on our sites.
Boss: I'm not telling thousands of customers that they have to change their system configurations. Do you realize how many customers we lost when we switched over to this god forsaken external authentication mechanism? If we lose any more customers, I'm going to be out of a job. And I can guarantee you that you're out of a job before I am. Just fix it.
ITGuy: Well, I could embed the login window on the main page using Javascript, then proxy the authentication session through one of our servers. It won't be as secure, but would be transparent to the user.
Boss: Great. Do it.
So for a while, this company uses the external authentication as it should be used, and once the customers are comfy with using their Facebook account credentials, they won't blink when the login page changes slightly and embeds the login procedure. Boiled frog meet man-in-the-middle. Do we see yet? The risk isn't, and has never been, in the authentication mechanism. The risk is in the implementation.
So, you're logging-in through the Gawker portal, trusting that Gawker won't peek at the user/pass as they hand it off to Facebook or Twitter or whoever for authentication, right? Doesn't sound like an opportunity for a Gawker-in-the-Middle opportunity?
Further, since they're brokering the connection between you and the comment forum, they'll have access to the authentication credential, which would allow them to snoop your social media resources for as long as the credential is valid - they'd just need to spoof your user session.
You don't need one or two documents, a small business needs several hundred. Each standard references several others in part or whole.
Same thing applies to your residence. Municipal governments purchase the IBC code (2012 Full Set $556.00), the NFPA code (2008 edition $82.00), the NEC code (2008 edition plus CD $182.25), et cetera, ad nauseum. There is *one* copy of each codebook available in a library somewhere, and no, you may not check it out - it has to stay available for anyone to look at in order to maintain the "ignorance is no excuse" cop-out. So please, go purchase all the relevant code documents associated with residential construction in your area and tell me when it starts to get financially significant.
Law enforcement needs to be prohibited from having a profit motive. If they profit from certain behavior, they are no longer doing "law enforcement"... they're a business at that point. You can call it "revenue enhancement" or "budget augmentation," but it's still a stinky turd.
I have often proposed the Red Light Lottery. Fines collected from red light cameras need to be removed from the municipality's purview entirely. If you put it in the General Fund, which at first glance seems to benefit all, you'll shorty discover that the law enforcement budget is fudged somewhere else to net-out the money. To be effective, the money must be removed from the politicians' hands. The only recourse is to return it to the people. In the Red Light Lottery, every month some number of non-citation-receiving drivers are eligible to "win" a percentage of the fee pool. The state isn't allowed to take a cut, nor is it allowed to tax said lottery windfall at 99%.
Yeah, I know... won't happen. Politicians won't ever do something like this because it damages their ability to be in control. If they had to issue a bond referendum every time they wanted to install these red light cameras, there would be rioting in the streets. That's why they finance the things through the manufacturers, paying a percentage of the take indefinitely.
It's difficult to find specific numbers for "launch costs," as they're different for each mission. Wallops has some numbers on their website indicating that a LEO insertion will require a vehicle that costs $5M-$10M. That doesn't include any of the facility costs, nor the collateral costs like clearing the downrange area of ships and payload recovery. A typical 100kg payload launch program on a mid-sized sounding rocket from Wallops will run you about $12M total.
"Miracle" is exactly the word I would have used. These aren't orbital launch vehicles. The biggest one, the Terrier-Malamute, will drop into the ocean about 700km from the launch site. That's about half-way to Bermuda. Granted, that's with a launch angle of 77 degrees, and I expect they might be able to extend the downrange performance a bit by reducing the launch angle (which they won't do.) But the only land mass that's anywhere near the performance envelope of these vehicles is Bermuda. Last I checked, Bermuda hadn't petitioned for admission into the Axis of Evil.
Right now, fracking is the underground equivalent of strip-mining or "topping." It's the least expensive method for extracting the desired resource, loaded full of cost-shifting methodlogies. Fracking fluids are a "trade secret?" Well, as soon as they are deployed into the environment, they should be subject to EPA regulation. Benzene and other toxic chemicals? It's much less expensive to use them as fracking fluids than to properly dispose of... easier too, especially since no one knows what's in the "secret sauce."
Take the recent east coast earthquakes. The Washington DC area isn't considered seismically active. Structures are not built with earthqakes in mind. If fracking produces earthquake activity, the general population will experience a "scorched earth" result. (That's on of the cost-shifted expenses mentioned above.)
Further, the artificial scarcity coupled with monopolistic behavior (enabled by the copyright structure) allows the supplier to do whatever he wants. In this particular instance, Sony is charging more for Ms. Houston's music because: .a) they can .b) you have no alternatives
You're basically presented with Hobson's Choice. Free market economics don't really apply when goods aren't comparable or the market is constrained.
It's not just the RIAA. The MPAA does the same thing, as do the big dead-tree publishers. They all occupy a place called "distribution," and are classic middle-men. They don't produce the {$item}, nor do they perform the retail sales. They control the conduit between the source and destination, which puts them in a position to regulate flow.
If you've been to Los Angeles or New York City recently, you'll notice that there's no shortage of talented folks about. Just ask your bartender or server what "side projects" he or she is working on.
The big production houses can't produce too many mega-stars without diluting the value of mega-stardom. They know this. Consequently they limit the number of mega-stars produced each year or decade. It's actually classic cartel behavior.
And don't take my word for it. Go read about US v. Hollywod. Movie studios are prohibited by law from owning the entire production-distribution chain... because they can create an artificial scarcity via monopolistic practices.
The RIAA members intentionally create a "limited number of slots available." This artificial scarcity alters the market dynamic, very much so in the favor of the RIAA. Don't think this is an accident. It's fundamental to their business model. An open market is the last thing they want.
Even more important - a hydrazine thruster is super-high-reliability. In space, pulling to the curb and calling AAA isn't an option (yet.) A liquid bi-propellant thruster is substantially more complicated than a hydrazine monopropellant one, and is more likely to have problems.
"Green" is the modern equivalent of "Safety First," which is a load of crap except for the safety alarmists (i.e. safety equipment vendors.) Mike Rowe is spot on with "Safety Third." I'd put Green at fourth. Every task has an attendant risk and cost. Environmental impact is a cost.
I'm all for developing less-toxic solutions, but a hydrazine monopropellant thruster is damned effective. It also shifts the system risk to the ground handling crews, where we can deal with it (as opposed to shifting it to on-orbit failures.)
If that anchor has a lot of money attached to it, then what's the problem?
I'll start with Ben Franklin, and finish with Jonathan Coulton:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
(Works with financial safety as well as physical safety.)
"Here are some things I do differently from some other artists: I own all my music 100%, which means I have complete control over how I sell it (or not). I can give it away, I can bundle it on a USB key or in a zip file, I can allow people to make and post music videos, and I don’t have to deal with lawyers or labels to do any of that. I also get all the profits." - Jonathan Coulton
Currently, a record label contract is the equivalent to indentured servitude.
'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand,...
... caused primarily by monopolistic market-control practices of the big studios...
... into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content....
... aka "prOn"...
... which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise...
... because the big media cartels wouldn't allow it due to either a perceived threat or risk aversion.
The biggest advantage videotape created was the ability to copy and distribute your work without involving the distribution cartels. That's one of the reasons they beat on recordable media so bad. Their business model is predicated on creating an artificial shortage by creating a choke point in the distribution chain. My wife was watching "The Voice" the other day, and I laughed myself out of my chair when they offered the winner a recording contract with a big studio. That's like having an anchor chained to your neck. "But it's a chromed, Limited Edition, hand-forged Anchor!"
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to quantize the buy/sell process. Just impose a minimum hold time after initial purchase. Requiring a 1-second hold puts a strong limit on how much damage the HFT guys can cause, but is invisible to anyone else. Once you're past the 1-second minimum, your trade may be executed immediately. You don't need to restrict the buying part of the transaction, just the sell. The HFT guys will squeal like a stuck pig, only because it limits their ability to rape the brokerage system. (Yeah, I'm certain it's not this simple, especially considering all the imaginary financial transactions like puts, calls, options, warrants, derivatives, etc.)
I believe that's pronounced "Tau BooTAY ! "
I have 15+ years of motorcycle seat time. I have had zero accidents, though I did drop my scoot on it's side twice (parking lot low-sides.) As a passenger, I've been in 9 or 10 car accidents in my life. I've lost count. I know one person who died on a motorcycle. I know three people who died in car accidents. Seems that being on the road, regardless of vehicle, is essentially suicide (even if you won't admit it.) We should ban all forms of motor vehicle. Hell, ban the bicycles and skateboards, too. And people who walk with canes ... they could fall and impale themselves or others. Damn, the world is a dangerous place. Maybe we should ban the world.
There's a clue in the previous post that I believe you've missed. Re-read that part about "parts of my body dragging along the ground." (Hint: this is generally done in a controlled environment.)
Other activities that *could* kill you:
- Crossing the street (walking on a street full of cars is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Un-jamming the toaster with a metal knife (messing with electrical appliances is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Eating sushi (eating raw meat is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Skydiving (jumping from a perfectly servicable aircraft is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
I don't appreciate others trying to protect me from myself. Where would you propose that I ride my motorcycle? In your bathtub? (now *that* would be stupid.)
Well, considering when this historical document was written, the State Governors could call up a militia from the able-bodied population. When you were called to duty, you were also expected to bring your long arm with you. So yes, the common man would have expected to have access to cutting-edge military technology of the time.
In modern times, we restrict sales of certain items to government or law enforcement agencies only. That's consistent with maintenance of a standing army (I'm not expected to bring my long arm and ammunition to boot camp should I enlist.) Unfortunately, there's a huge middle ground of contestable items - from machine guns to suppressors - that initiate frothing emotional debates from very opinionated folks. It doesn't help when BATFE classifies copper pot scrubbers and shoe laces as "firearms."
JudgeBot: Citizen, you are charged with "intent to speed." How do you plead?
You: Uhm, you Honor, I plead "nuh uh." I was on a bicycle on an uphill incline where the posted limit is 65 mph. How could I possibly speed?
JudgeBot: Citizen, your statement provides no merit against the charge. TrafficCamera19203-Z is a sworn officer of the court, and his observation of your intention to speed is admissible as evidence to this court. [gavel BANG!] The court finds you guitly. Bailiff, please escort this Citizen to the Payment Processor.
Funny, I was stumbling through some Private Snafu shorts last night, and watched this gem. I find it very interesting to look back at the films from the WWII era and see how much (or how little) society has changed.
As for the Bavarians camping on Mein Kampf, you'd think that they would have figured out that most parents have - the more you demonize something (alcohol, MJ, sex et al), the more the teenagers will find it appealing. If they want to destroy the financial incentive associated with the work, release it GPL-style. Make sure derivative works have to be GPL'd as well. Just stuffing the master copy under a mattress is ineffective.
So your version of God isn't all-knowing and all-powerful? I'm not buying that a God who is capable of creating billions of planets, stars, and systems wouldn't have a firm grasp on probability and interstellar trajectories. Maybe we should consider that your God is bored (he does control everything, right?) and has set up the universe as a giant Rube Goldberg machine for His entertainment. He would have to accede to non-interference for the exercise to have any value.
Funny, I can buy a house "used" and not be obligated to pay the original builder a dime. A house can even appreciate in value beyond the original purchase price. The original developer still gets nothing from the profits of the sale. There is no grand conspiracy to deprive house builders of something they're owed, because they aren't owed squat.
This is just another example of software companies trying to cherry-pick the distinction between "owned" and "licensed." Your CD is scratched and won't read anymore? Sorry, you own the product and you'll need to buy another one as a replacement. Oh, you want to sell the product to someone else? Nope, you didn't really buy it, you purchased a license which isn't transferrable. Unadulterated cash-grab, it is.
So, you're in a position to guarantee that Gawker et al. are going to implement the authentication mechanism to the theoretically-correct ruleset? I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say "I think not."
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but people are the weakest link in any security method. I can easily see the following scenario unfold:
Boss: I'm getting complaints about people being unable to log in.
ITGuy: They're probably running pop-up blockers.
Boss: So?
ITGuy: You need to tell our visitors to allow pop-ups on our sites.
Boss: I'm not telling thousands of customers that they have to change their system configurations. Do you realize how many customers we lost when we switched over to this god forsaken external authentication mechanism? If we lose any more customers, I'm going to be out of a job. And I can guarantee you that you're out of a job before I am. Just fix it.
ITGuy: Well, I could embed the login window on the main page using Javascript, then proxy the authentication session through one of our servers. It won't be as secure, but would be transparent to the user.
Boss: Great. Do it.
So for a while, this company uses the external authentication as it should be used, and once the customers are comfy with using their Facebook account credentials, they won't blink when the login page changes slightly and embeds the login procedure. Boiled frog meet man-in-the-middle. Do we see yet? The risk isn't, and has never been, in the authentication mechanism. The risk is in the implementation.
Yes, this is the real problem. The original question was "what is the security risk?" not "how should this work in theory?"
So, you're logging-in through the Gawker portal, trusting that Gawker won't peek at the user/pass as they hand it off to Facebook or Twitter or whoever for authentication, right? Doesn't sound like an opportunity for a Gawker-in-the-Middle opportunity?
Further, since they're brokering the connection between you and the comment forum, they'll have access to the authentication credential, which would allow them to snoop your social media resources for as long as the credential is valid - they'd just need to spoof your user session.
You don't need one or two documents, a small business needs several hundred. Each standard references several others in part or whole.
Same thing applies to your residence. Municipal governments purchase the IBC code (2012 Full Set $556.00), the NFPA code (2008 edition $82.00), the NEC code (2008 edition plus CD $182.25), et cetera, ad nauseum. There is *one* copy of each codebook available in a library somewhere, and no, you may not check it out - it has to stay available for anyone to look at in order to maintain the "ignorance is no excuse" cop-out. So please, go purchase all the relevant code documents associated with residential construction in your area and tell me when it starts to get financially significant.
Law enforcement needs to be prohibited from having a profit motive. If they profit from certain behavior, they are no longer doing "law enforcement" ... they're a business at that point. You can call it "revenue enhancement" or "budget augmentation," but it's still a stinky turd.
... won't happen. Politicians won't ever do something like this because it damages their ability to be in control. If they had to issue a bond referendum every time they wanted to install these red light cameras, there would be rioting in the streets. That's why they finance the things through the manufacturers, paying a percentage of the take indefinitely.
I have often proposed the Red Light Lottery. Fines collected from red light cameras need to be removed from the municipality's purview entirely. If you put it in the General Fund, which at first glance seems to benefit all, you'll shorty discover that the law enforcement budget is fudged somewhere else to net-out the money. To be effective, the money must be removed from the politicians' hands. The only recourse is to return it to the people. In the Red Light Lottery, every month some number of non-citation-receiving drivers are eligible to "win" a percentage of the fee pool. The state isn't allowed to take a cut, nor is it allowed to tax said lottery windfall at 99%.
Yeah, I know
It's difficult to find specific numbers for "launch costs," as they're different for each mission. Wallops has some numbers on their website indicating that a LEO insertion will require a vehicle that costs $5M-$10M. That doesn't include any of the facility costs, nor the collateral costs like clearing the downrange area of ships and payload recovery. A typical 100kg payload launch program on a mid-sized sounding rocket from Wallops will run you about $12M total.
"Miracle" is exactly the word I would have used. These aren't orbital launch vehicles. The biggest one, the Terrier-Malamute, will drop into the ocean about 700km from the launch site. That's about half-way to Bermuda. Granted, that's with a launch angle of 77 degrees, and I expect they might be able to extend the downrange performance a bit by reducing the launch angle (which they won't do.) But the only land mass that's anywhere near the performance envelope of these vehicles is Bermuda. Last I checked, Bermuda hadn't petitioned for admission into the Axis of Evil.
The linked. mutated gene means she's also more likely to have super-powers. Watch your back.
My redhead sister may have low pain tolerance, but damn, she can certainly dish it out.
Right now, fracking is the underground equivalent of strip-mining or "topping." It's the least expensive method for extracting the desired resource, loaded full of cost-shifting methodlogies. Fracking fluids are a "trade secret?" Well, as soon as they are deployed into the environment, they should be subject to EPA regulation. Benzene and other toxic chemicals? It's much less expensive to use them as fracking fluids than to properly dispose of ... easier too, especially since no one knows what's in the "secret sauce."
Take the recent east coast earthquakes. The Washington DC area isn't considered seismically active. Structures are not built with earthqakes in mind. If fracking produces earthquake activity, the general population will experience a "scorched earth" result. (That's on of the cost-shifted expenses mentioned above.)
Further, the artificial scarcity coupled with monopolistic behavior (enabled by the copyright structure) allows the supplier to do whatever he wants. In this particular instance, Sony is charging more for Ms. Houston's music because:
.a) they can
.b) you have no alternatives
You're basically presented with Hobson's Choice. Free market economics don't really apply when goods aren't comparable or the market is constrained.
Your lottery payouts don't require you to scorch the earth beneath your feet.
It's not just the RIAA. The MPAA does the same thing, as do the big dead-tree publishers. They all occupy a place called "distribution," and are classic middle-men. They don't produce the {$item}, nor do they perform the retail sales. They control the conduit between the source and destination, which puts them in a position to regulate flow.
... because they can create an artificial scarcity via monopolistic practices.
If you've been to Los Angeles or New York City recently, you'll notice that there's no shortage of talented folks about. Just ask your bartender or server what "side projects" he or she is working on.
The big production houses can't produce too many mega-stars without diluting the value of mega-stardom. They know this. Consequently they limit the number of mega-stars produced each year or decade. It's actually classic cartel behavior.
And don't take my word for it. Go read about US v. Hollywod. Movie studios are prohibited by law from owning the entire production-distribution chain
The RIAA members intentionally create a "limited number of slots available." This artificial scarcity alters the market dynamic, very much so in the favor of the RIAA. Don't think this is an accident. It's fundamental to their business model. An open market is the last thing they want.
Even more important - a hydrazine thruster is super-high-reliability. In space, pulling to the curb and calling AAA isn't an option (yet.) A liquid bi-propellant thruster is substantially more complicated than a hydrazine monopropellant one, and is more likely to have problems.
"Green" is the modern equivalent of "Safety First," which is a load of crap except for the safety alarmists (i.e. safety equipment vendors.) Mike Rowe is spot on with "Safety Third." I'd put Green at fourth. Every task has an attendant risk and cost. Environmental impact is a cost.
I'm all for developing less-toxic solutions, but a hydrazine monopropellant thruster is damned effective. It also shifts the system risk to the ground handling crews, where we can deal with it (as opposed to shifting it to on-orbit failures.)
I'll start with Ben Franklin, and finish with Jonathan Coulton:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
(Works with financial safety as well as physical safety.)
"Here are some things I do differently from some other artists: I own all my music 100%, which means I have complete control over how I sell it (or not). I can give it away, I can bundle it on a USB key or in a zip file, I can allow people to make and post music videos, and I don’t have to deal with lawyers or labels to do any of that. I also get all the profits." - Jonathan Coulton
Currently, a record label contract is the equivalent to indentured servitude.
The biggest advantage videotape created was the ability to copy and distribute your work without involving the distribution cartels. That's one of the reasons they beat on recordable media so bad. Their business model is predicated on creating an artificial shortage by creating a choke point in the distribution chain. My wife was watching "The Voice" the other day, and I laughed myself out of my chair when they offered the winner a recording contract with a big studio. That's like having an anchor chained to your neck. "But it's a chromed, Limited Edition, hand-forged Anchor!"