I don't see how anyone could reasonably reject a call for a higher tax burden on $1m+ individuals/corporations, if it is inflation-indexed so that the other 99.8% of earners aren't all paying this tax in 10 years. We don't need AMT 2.0
The really interesting part of the paper was about "non-standard" analysis where there are infinite numerals between terminating numerals, eg "0.999...999" I'd never heard of that construction before. They mention how Leibnitz wrote of trying to imagine of a line whose length is longer than any finite line, but which also has end points. Mind bending.
No one is forced to trade in the continuous market. Auctions occur at close and open and in some venues throughout the day. "Oligopoly of the rich." Hilarious. Individuals have never paid less to transact in the stock market. It's the large institutional players that are hurt most when they have large orders and aren't sophisticated enough to dodge the HFTs.
In gambling, the only winner is the house. In this case it's the brokerages.
I hope this helps.
--
BMO
Investing is gambling. Where do you draw the line? You can't.
Brokerages win, because they provide a valuable service. How else would buyers meet sellers? Craigslist?
Investors sometimes win, they sometimes lose. You get compensated for the risk. Why should anyone compensate you for a sure thing?
All these suggested "fixes" are just plain silly. Does anyone really think they can come up with a single stock tradihng solution better than the organic evolution of thousand years of human experience with exchanging financial claims?
All these markets - NYSE, NASDAQ, dark pools, etc. - have their own market microstructures which have evolved to satisfy the needs of participants of the capital markets. If participants or their agents are truly disadvantaged, they will trade at another venue, or simply stop playing the game.
A lot of the proposed "solutions" to imagined "problems" are simply political in nature, meant to benefit some at the expense of others, and will cause more problems than they solve.
Many different venues already have auction mechanisms so that all trades are executed simultaneously at a single clearing price. No one forces anyone to trade stocks in the continuous market. There are lots of pros and cons to auctions vs continuous trading and all other sorts of market microstructures.
Just be assured that any single "solution" you can come up with will leave something to be desired at best.
I should add:
1)present value is simply future discounted value.
2)companies figured out that buying back their own shares, functionally equivalent to dividends, is a more tax efficient way to pay you. Dividends are taxed when distributed, although those earnings were taxed when earned by the company you own. Dividends are subject to double taxation.
Um, no. A stock is a fractional ownership of a company. Just because shares don't pay dividends now don't mean they aren't worth anything. It's fundamentally worth the value of your voting rights plus the discounted value of any future payouts. In addition, the market functions to aggregate many estimates regarding (future) value into a single number, one which academic research supports as being more accurate than the vast majority of individual estimates.
I've bought cables from them before, they always struck me as the perfect antidote to the snake oil industry. This only increases my respect for an already respectable company.
What about the claim from TFA that "... the highest resolution sound is generally available via 5.1 or 7.1 analog connections. This is due to the limitations of most digital connections, which can at best provide a Dolby Digital or DTS signal... Today's better PC systems can decode 24-bit audio in all its high resolution sweetness and output it via 7.1 analog outputs directly to a multi-channel amplifier or to the multi-channel inputs of a pre/pro or surround receiver."
In other words, can S/PDIF not carry high throughput signals for some reason? I was not aware of this myself, and I think the article might be wrong here?
I was wondering, what if you bought a commercial disk and made a copy without protection (via copy circumvention in a country where fair use isn't demolished by the dmca, like in sweden), and then destroyed the original, and resold it as a "drm-free" version? No one can argue the content has changed... so doesn't this then fall under the right of first sale, which was upheld by the supreme court some time ago?
But notwithstanding that it's not illegal for the content owner to decrypt the content, Muslix64's decryption program seems likely to be used primarily to circumvent copy protection, which under the DMCA is illegal, right? Not that I don't think the DMCA is evil, but why does everyone play word games and simply ignore the intention of software or individuals?
The judge says in the notes "To the extent that they [the plaintiffs] allege distribution... and they're claiming that either distribution includes actual distribution or making available for distribution, the question comes, Well, what does it mean? What does distribution mean?" I think the court will answer that copyright can be violated by making available with the intent to distribute, ie, it's all about the intention, that "making available" isn't enough in and of itself to be counted as distribution.
I just finished this book recently. Another major objection Smolin has to String theory is that it is "background dependent" like quantum theory: that is, it depends on the perspective of the observer, which flies in the face of Einstein's revolution. He finds deeply unsettling the possibility that there is a preferred position or direction of motion in the universe. He laments the lack of physicists interested in the fundamentals of the science, saying the academy is set up to favor technical prowess in mathematics rather than any philosophically new ideas in physics, which are desparately needed in his view. He mentions several other prominent scientists who share this concern for needing revolutionary ideas (Roger Penrose, for instance). I'm disappointed in this review: it didn't do the book justice. As a lay reader, I found it easier to follow than Lisa Randall's book Warped Passeges (or Penrose's difficult Road to Reality), and less "cheerleadery" than Brian Greene's books, but nevertheless very exciting.
Writing good software is hard because while the result is just a tool for a job, identifying the job can be very, very difficult. Sometimes it's like planning to create a square peg for a hole that may or may not be circular, and whose circumference might no longer be known in six to twelve months.
I have a sony HDV camera and I tried encoding an HD clip using HD-DVD-like specs (using x264 and educated guesses from doom9, since the spec isn't public), and my P4 3Ghz (nearly 4 yrs old now) could not play it back without severe stuttering. And this was using CoreAVC, the fastest software decoder (forget even trying to use ffmpeg).
Looks like the primary difference is ZK allows UI design in pure mark-up (XUL components and ZUML) and sends to the server all UI events the fire at the client end (which is rendered in DHTML)... it claims no RPC involved; while Google is offering a programming toolkit to implement the UI, kind of like a Swing replacement, also looks like the RPC serializing may make for heavy page loads. Upside of Google toolkit is its pure Java - no need to learn scripting, or a new xml language.
It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.
Well, I would want to know if games pose any threat, just like I feel better knowing the dangers of cigarettes and other carcinogens, dangerous dietary supplements, the link between obesity and diabetes. You expect some privately funded interest to generate this information?
I agree with you; I should have said, the premium should be proportional to the _expected_ risk. This is also a loose definition though, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there are other ways of managing disaster than trying to prevent it.
You can also significantly lower your chances of being in a fatal car accident by not driving a car. In other words, I think the key here is _managing_ risk, not trying to remove it entirely. Financially, you can usually just pay a risk premium (that is proportional to the probability of the event occuring) to transfer some or all of the risk exposure to another party, who can then subdivide it and spread it across other parties in turn (think reinsurance industry with stockholders); this system works, however, many victims come up with the short end of the deal because they have seriously mismanaged their risk exposure. I think preemptively helping people manage risk - financially or otherwise - is the best way to mitigate disaster, but you just can't implement drastic solutions that try to prevent disaster in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how anyone could reasonably reject a call for a higher tax burden on $1m+ individuals/corporations, if it is inflation-indexed so that the other 99.8% of earners aren't all paying this tax in 10 years. We don't need AMT 2.0
I've always wondered: why doesn't Biff meeting himself to give himself the almanac rip a hole in the space-time continuum?
The really interesting part of the paper was about "non-standard" analysis where there are infinite numerals between terminating numerals, eg "0.999...999" I'd never heard of that construction before. They mention how Leibnitz wrote of trying to imagine of a line whose length is longer than any finite line, but which also has end points. Mind bending.
So short the market, put your money where your mouth is. The more people do, the more accurate prices will be.
Right. Security through obscurity. Oh, wait...
No one is forced to trade in the continuous market. Auctions occur at close and open and in some venues throughout the day. "Oligopoly of the rich." Hilarious. Individuals have never paid less to transact in the stock market. It's the large institutional players that are hurt most when they have large orders and aren't sophisticated enough to dodge the HFTs.
Because it's no longer investing.
It's gambling.
In gambling, the only winner is the house. In this case it's the brokerages.
I hope this helps.
-- BMO
Investing is gambling. Where do you draw the line? You can't. Brokerages win, because they provide a valuable service. How else would buyers meet sellers? Craigslist? Investors sometimes win, they sometimes lose. You get compensated for the risk. Why should anyone compensate you for a sure thing?
All these markets - NYSE, NASDAQ, dark pools, etc. - have their own market microstructures which have evolved to satisfy the needs of participants of the capital markets. If participants or their agents are truly disadvantaged, they will trade at another venue, or simply stop playing the game.
A lot of the proposed "solutions" to imagined "problems" are simply political in nature, meant to benefit some at the expense of others, and will cause more problems than they solve.
Many different venues already have auction mechanisms so that all trades are executed simultaneously at a single clearing price. No one forces anyone to trade stocks in the continuous market. There are lots of pros and cons to auctions vs continuous trading and all other sorts of market microstructures.
Just be assured that any single "solution" you can come up with will leave something to be desired at best.
I should add: 1)present value is simply future discounted value. 2)companies figured out that buying back their own shares, functionally equivalent to dividends, is a more tax efficient way to pay you. Dividends are taxed when distributed, although those earnings were taxed when earned by the company you own. Dividends are subject to double taxation.
Um, no. A stock is a fractional ownership of a company. Just because shares don't pay dividends now don't mean they aren't worth anything. It's fundamentally worth the value of your voting rights plus the discounted value of any future payouts. In addition, the market functions to aggregate many estimates regarding (future) value into a single number, one which academic research supports as being more accurate than the vast majority of individual estimates.
Does this not give the gov't another way (with a limited time window) to peer into our personal affairs?
I've bought cables from them before, they always struck me as the perfect antidote to the snake oil industry. This only increases my respect for an already respectable company.
So what do scientists mean when they say quantum entanglement shows particles can instantaneously affect each other over any distance?
What about the claim from TFA that "... the highest resolution sound is generally available via 5.1 or 7.1 analog connections. This is due to the limitations of most digital connections, which can at best provide a Dolby Digital or DTS signal ... Today's better PC systems can decode 24-bit audio in all its high resolution sweetness and output it via 7.1 analog outputs directly to a multi-channel amplifier or to the multi-channel inputs of a pre/pro or surround receiver."
In other words, can S/PDIF not carry high throughput signals for some reason? I was not aware of this myself, and I think the article might be wrong here?
I was wondering, what if you bought a commercial disk and made a copy without protection (via copy circumvention in a country where fair use isn't demolished by the dmca, like in sweden), and then destroyed the original, and resold it as a "drm-free" version? No one can argue the content has changed... so doesn't this then fall under the right of first sale, which was upheld by the supreme court some time ago?
But notwithstanding that it's not illegal for the content owner to decrypt the content, Muslix64's decryption program seems likely to be used primarily to circumvent copy protection, which under the DMCA is illegal, right? Not that I don't think the DMCA is evil, but why does everyone play word games and simply ignore the intention of software or individuals?
The judge says in the notes "To the extent that they [the plaintiffs] allege distribution ... and they're claiming that either distribution includes actual distribution or making available for distribution, the question comes, Well, what does it mean? What does distribution mean?" I think the court will answer that copyright can be violated by making available with the intent to distribute, ie, it's all about the intention, that "making available" isn't enough in and of itself to be counted as distribution.
I just finished this book recently. Another major objection Smolin has to String theory is that it is "background dependent" like quantum theory: that is, it depends on the perspective of the observer, which flies in the face of Einstein's revolution. He finds deeply unsettling the possibility that there is a preferred position or direction of motion in the universe. He laments the lack of physicists interested in the fundamentals of the science, saying the academy is set up to favor technical prowess in mathematics rather than any philosophically new ideas in physics, which are desparately needed in his view. He mentions several other prominent scientists who share this concern for needing revolutionary ideas (Roger Penrose, for instance). I'm disappointed in this review: it didn't do the book justice. As a lay reader, I found it easier to follow than Lisa Randall's book Warped Passeges (or Penrose's difficult Road to Reality), and less "cheerleadery" than Brian Greene's books, but nevertheless very exciting.
Writing good software is hard because while the result is just a tool for a job, identifying the job can be very, very difficult. Sometimes it's like planning to create a square peg for a hole that may or may not be circular, and whose circumference might no longer be known in six to twelve months.
I have a sony HDV camera and I tried encoding an HD clip using HD-DVD-like specs (using x264 and educated guesses from doom9, since the spec isn't public), and my P4 3Ghz (nearly 4 yrs old now) could not play it back without severe stuttering. And this was using CoreAVC, the fastest software decoder (forget even trying to use ffmpeg).
Looks like the primary difference is ZK allows UI design in pure mark-up (XUL components and ZUML) and sends to the server all UI events the fire at the client end (which is rendered in DHTML)... it claims no RPC involved; while Google is offering a programming toolkit to implement the UI, kind of like a Swing replacement, also looks like the RPC serializing may make for heavy page loads. Upside of Google toolkit is its pure Java - no need to learn scripting, or a new xml language.
It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech. Well, I would want to know if games pose any threat, just like I feel better knowing the dangers of cigarettes and other carcinogens, dangerous dietary supplements, the link between obesity and diabetes. You expect some privately funded interest to generate this information?
I agree with you; I should have said, the premium should be proportional to the _expected_ risk. This is also a loose definition though, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there are other ways of managing disaster than trying to prevent it.
You can also significantly lower your chances of being in a fatal car accident by not driving a car. In other words, I think the key here is _managing_ risk, not trying to remove it entirely. Financially, you can usually just pay a risk premium (that is proportional to the probability of the event occuring) to transfer some or all of the risk exposure to another party, who can then subdivide it and spread it across other parties in turn (think reinsurance industry with stockholders); this system works, however, many victims come up with the short end of the deal because they have seriously mismanaged their risk exposure. I think preemptively helping people manage risk - financially or otherwise - is the best way to mitigate disaster, but you just can't implement drastic solutions that try to prevent disaster in the first place.
Make sure you include the option to reboot in your living will.