But liquidity goes down. I'm a buy and hold invester, I don't really care about HFT. I still don't understand how HFT hurts me? Doesn't it just increase volume thereby letting my trades complete more efficiently.
I still get the shares I want at the price I want.
You could throw something together, or just make a nice organized list in a spreadsheet. With appropriate filters it can be quite useable. For only a few hundred/thousand items spreadsheets make nice databases.
The big problem is keeping it up to date, that's where you'll likely run into trouble.
I can't see it being $200. $200 per infringing copy maybe, but not $200 for an unlimited number of infringements.
However to argue that they didn't intend to breach the agreement they would have to argue that they distributed the sofware without reviewing, or without understanding the license agreement.
The arguement "I didn't know it was wrong because I didn't read the license they gave me" is a pretty weak defense.
I didn't realize that the RIAA would drop the suit if you discontinued your infringement. I've never heard of that, it seems a much cheaper way.
I agree Apple does have a defence, and they can likely claim that they didn't know however.
They may not have intended to infringe. However they DID distribute, therefore they DID infringe.
Therefore Apple has a problem. They can go after the developers who submitted it to them, however they probably don't have very deep pockets, and they are only liable for their actions. Depending what they told Apple, they may or may not have an issue there, but "he told me to" isn't much of a legal defense.
As far as settlement, the FSF would simply ask for them to comply by unlocking iPhones, something they won't do. I'm pretty sure Apple would much rather pay a small fine for copyright infringement than open up their phone.
I'll play for a month, then I'll have a busy month or two and my PS3 will just collect dust. Free online play was a key deciding factor for me, I'm not willing to pay for a service that I don't use on a regular basis.
Linux based, simple, samba and NFS support. Nice cheap consumer device. If I wanted more I'd consider the DNS343, 4 2TB drives =8TB, which is pretty reasonable.
Shouldn't the eating areas be constructed to facilitate cleaning? I understand chewing gum bans, but jolly ranchers?
As far as junk food bans, this is getting crazy. A friend of mine had her daughters zero calorie soda confiscated, yet other kids can keep their kool aid and juice boxes, which are less healthy by many accounts.
The governments solution to bad decisions by parents is to empower teachers and administration to make bad decisions instead.
This is ridiculous.
Kids should eat in an easy to clean area, they should be able to eat whatever the parents decide to send.
It might be nice to get the opinion of Canon on this one. They advertise their new dSLR's as professional.
They have used the video mode in their dSLRs to tape an episode of House (5D I think) and the Rebel T2i commercial.
They have used it for commercial purposes, and they're clearly suggesting it is suitable and capable of professional video use.
I'd say it would become a horribly messy legal fight if they tried to enforce this restriction on individuals. At the very least it would entail accusations that the manufacturers like Canon misleading consumers on what their cameras can and should be used for.
Does this pass the reasonableness test? It really doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to most people, which is a problem either way. If this was posed to go to a jury it would be very risky. 1. They might lose the legal case. 2. They might win the legal case, which would be a PR, and potential legal disaster for their immediate customers.
I do recall the pain of losing data on a 5 1/4. Having used Commodore computers first, I was shocked that PC's would have you power on with a disk in the drive.
As far as 3 1/2 cases being rigid, I agree. However it's the DISK we're talking about, not the case. I think 5 1/4 disks were actually more rigid than the 3 1/2 disks (I am talking about the actual disk, not the protective case.
The truth is the 3½-inch, 1.44 megabyte floppy - the disk that made it big - has always defied logic. It's not floppy for a start.
Really come, it's been around long enough everyone should have peeked behind that little window and seen the disk actually is a floppy little piece of plastic.
Happened to a few people I know, not surprising, the same vehicle drives several nearby streets throughout the day. If it's a nice day, and you're running around, you're likely to get a few photos taken.
Stocks move because every day, and throughout the day different people come to an agreement on the price. Likely due to their different perceptions and different valuations of the company.
Unless everyone has the same valuation model, including time horizon, risk tolerance discount rate etc, they can't all come up with the same value at any time.
As for noone would make much money, I disagree. There are 2 ways to make money on the stock market. 1. Find a bigger fool method. You buy a stock in the hope that someone, who isn't as smart as you, pays more for it than you did. 2. Value creation, you buy stock in a company knowing they are a good profitable company, after some time of growing the company is actually worth more, they might have even simply paid their profits to you via dividends etc.
#1 is a zero sum game, and in a "perfect market" that shouldn't happen. #2 is the way I see the market, and actually everyone can win
There are companies that are very profitable and spit out cash, year after year. There are also risky companies that may or may not turn a profit, and you can be well rewarded for taking the chance.
I think better that you're smarter than everyone else is a losing game, you're not that smart.
This is why index funds tend to out perform actively managed funds year after year, they surrender to the simple idea that you're are likely not smarter than everyone else.
So rather than actually explain what the item is, they'll just build a model of what it is, and let you put in your own assumptions.
So we'll create a bunch of programming overhead, and end up with huge improvements. Namely that iInstead of descriptions nobody reads or understands, we'll have programs nobody runs or understands.
I've got an idea, I know it might sound crazy but here it goes. If you see someone selling a great deal, but you don't quite get what they're selling, how it works, or even why it's such a great deal, DON'T BUY IT.
We could even impose this on industry, maybe make it a legal/ethical requirement that people moving around large sums of money act with due diligence or something.
If people actually stuck to this, and only bought things that they understood and made sense to them, the companies making these confusing products that nobody understands would have to make simpler more straightforward products.
These guys need to step back, and make products that THEY understand. If the designer of the product can't figure it out, it's too confusing. If none of the potential customers can understand it, it's too confusing.
Really if they currently can't implement the description, how does documenting it in python make it any better?
If it is truly mandatory, I think the company should pay for at least a part of it.
If it is specific to your current job and employer, but is otherwise not useful to you the company should pay.
If it is general training that is more personal development, the company can consider paying, but they could fairly go either way.
The real question is if you're short term commodity staff, or a long term member of core staff. If they consider you part of their team, they should invest in you. If they consider you a replacable generic commodity, then they shouldn't. By not investing in you, the company is showing how much they really value you.
That being said, if you supervisor values you above the corporate philosophy he might permit you some time to work on some of this stuff. What's a few hours a week if you're improving your work performance. Also it gives a good opportunity to be simultanously considering how to apply your new training to the company problems, as well as encourage other to seek out more training.
Well, there still are candidates in politics who stick to their principles.
I'd vote for them and donate to them.
Quite honestly the lobby and advocacy groups are great for pushing issues, but if you don't have good people in government to listen to them, their efforts are wasted.
Well this is why I have 2 different credit cards and bank accounts at two separate institutions.
1. I use my credit cards, they caught suspicious activity once, killed the card and called me immediately. I got a new card within a few days, in the meantime I had my other card. 2. I had trouble with my bank once, just walked over to my other bank and they gave me a small Line of Credit on the spot. I never plan on being tied to a single institution again.
Personally I don't touch debit cards, I only use it to go and deposit paychecks or occasionally withdraw money. For almost everything I simply use my credit card. I don't understand why anyone would choose to use a debit card over a credit card. Credit card gives me money back, I know fraudulent transactions are caught, and I get a free 30+ day loan on everything I buy.
The arguement used to push this law is cognitive load. The reason is specifically to deny the "special course" as a reasonable exception.
For certain professional drivers they've allowed a transition time to develop and deploy the new technologies.
For police etc I'm not sure what the logic is, unless they want to claim that they will limit access during "higher risk" situations with policy and procedure, rather than the blanket ban they are imposing on everyone else.
Having seen people text, read email, shave and even carry their pets on their laps while driving, I understand why they need a law like this.
As far as the handheld cell phone drivers, most people can't drive as it is. The phones certainly aren't helping.
Slashdot Mirror
But liquidity goes down.
I'm a buy and hold invester, I don't really care about HFT. I still don't understand how HFT hurts me?
Doesn't it just increase volume thereby letting my trades complete more efficiently.
I still get the shares I want at the price I want.
Here in Canada the carriers retain customers with long term contracts, not service.
Please don't give them the idea that they can charge for services like software upgrades.
This is a simple database problem.
You could throw something together, or just make a nice organized list in a spreadsheet. With appropriate filters it can be quite useable.
For only a few hundred/thousand items spreadsheets make nice databases.
The big problem is keeping it up to date, that's where you'll likely run into trouble.
Did you mean 200m?
I do this with my blackberry.
It's a pretty easy way to add contacts, and you don't need to worry about mistyping their PIN.
I'm surprised it isn't used more often.
I can't see it being $200.
$200 per infringing copy maybe, but not $200 for an unlimited number of infringements.
However to argue that they didn't intend to breach the agreement they would have to argue that they distributed the sofware without reviewing, or without understanding the license agreement.
The arguement "I didn't know it was wrong because I didn't read the license they gave me" is a pretty weak defense.
I didn't realize that the RIAA would drop the suit if you discontinued your infringement.
I've never heard of that, it seems a much cheaper way.
I agree Apple does have a defence, and they can likely claim that they didn't know however.
They may not have intended to infringe.
However they DID distribute, therefore they DID infringe.
Therefore Apple has a problem. They can go after the developers who submitted it to them, however they probably don't have very deep pockets, and they are only liable for their actions. Depending what they told Apple, they may or may not have an issue there, but "he told me to" isn't much of a legal defense.
As far as settlement, the FSF would simply ask for them to comply by unlocking iPhones, something they won't do.
I'm pretty sure Apple would much rather pay a small fine for copyright infringement than open up their phone.
I'm sure that is why RIAA doesn't sue anyone for copyright infringement.
I'm only an occassional gamer.
I'll play for a month, then I'll have a busy month or two and my PS3 will just collect dust.
Free online play was a key deciding factor for me, I'm not willing to pay for a service that I don't use on a regular basis.
Linux based, simple, samba and NFS support.
Nice cheap consumer device.
If I wanted more I'd consider the DNS343, 4 2TB drives =8TB, which is pretty reasonable.
Shouldn't the eating areas be constructed to facilitate cleaning?
I understand chewing gum bans, but jolly ranchers?
As far as junk food bans, this is getting crazy.
A friend of mine had her daughters zero calorie soda confiscated, yet other kids can keep their kool aid and juice boxes, which are less healthy by many accounts.
The governments solution to bad decisions by parents is to empower teachers and administration to make bad decisions instead.
This is ridiculous.
Kids should eat in an easy to clean area, they should be able to eat whatever the parents decide to send.
I'm curious what Canon would have to say on the subject of their Cameras being legally restricted from professional use.
I don't think this is a path any of the rights holders want to go down.
It might be nice to get the opinion of Canon on this one.
They advertise their new dSLR's as professional.
They have used the video mode in their dSLRs to tape an episode of House (5D I think) and the Rebel T2i commercial.
They have used it for commercial purposes, and they're clearly suggesting it is suitable and capable of professional video use.
I'd say it would become a horribly messy legal fight if they tried to enforce this restriction on individuals. At the very least it would entail accusations that the manufacturers like Canon misleading consumers on what their cameras can and should be used for.
Does this pass the reasonableness test?
It really doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to most people, which is a problem either way.
If this was posed to go to a jury it would be very risky.
1. They might lose the legal case.
2. They might win the legal case, which would be a PR, and potential legal disaster for their immediate customers.
I do recall the pain of losing data on a 5 1/4.
Having used Commodore computers first, I was shocked that PC's would have you power on with a disk in the drive.
As far as 3 1/2 cases being rigid, I agree.
However it's the DISK we're talking about, not the case.
I think 5 1/4 disks were actually more rigid than the 3 1/2 disks (I am talking about the actual disk, not the protective case.
Right from the article.
The truth is the 3½-inch, 1.44 megabyte floppy - the disk that made it big - has always defied logic. It's not floppy for a start.
Really come, it's been around long enough everyone should have peeked behind that little window and seen the disk actually is a floppy little piece of plastic.
Happened to a few people I know, not surprising, the same vehicle drives several nearby streets throughout the day.
If it's a nice day, and you're running around, you're likely to get a few photos taken.
Well there are no secrets here.
Stocks move because every day, and throughout the day different people come to an agreement on the price. Likely due to their different perceptions and different valuations of the company.
Unless everyone has the same valuation model, including time horizon, risk tolerance discount rate etc, they can't all come up with the same value at any time.
As for noone would make much money, I disagree.
There are 2 ways to make money on the stock market.
1. Find a bigger fool method. You buy a stock in the hope that someone, who isn't as smart as you, pays more for it than you did.
2. Value creation, you buy stock in a company knowing they are a good profitable company, after some time of growing the company is actually worth more, they might have even simply paid their profits to you via dividends etc.
#1 is a zero sum game, and in a "perfect market" that shouldn't happen.
#2 is the way I see the market, and actually everyone can win
There are companies that are very profitable and spit out cash, year after year. There are also risky companies that may or may not turn a profit, and you can be well rewarded for taking the chance.
I think better that you're smarter than everyone else is a losing game, you're not that smart.
This is why index funds tend to out perform actively managed funds year after year, they surrender to the simple idea that you're are likely not smarter than everyone else.
So rather than actually explain what the item is, they'll just build a model of what it is, and let you put in your own assumptions.
So we'll create a bunch of programming overhead, and end up with huge improvements.
Namely that iInstead of descriptions nobody reads or understands, we'll have programs nobody runs or understands.
I've got an idea, I know it might sound crazy but here it goes.
If you see someone selling a great deal, but you don't quite get what they're selling, how it works, or even why it's such a great deal, DON'T BUY IT.
We could even impose this on industry, maybe make it a legal/ethical requirement that people moving around large sums of money act with due diligence or something.
If people actually stuck to this, and only bought things that they understood and made sense to them, the companies making these confusing products that nobody understands would have to make simpler more straightforward products.
These guys need to step back, and make products that THEY understand. If the designer of the product can't figure it out, it's too confusing. If none of the potential customers can understand it, it's too confusing.
Really if they currently can't implement the description, how does documenting it in python make it any better?
Well I'll have to tell the writers, performers, etc that their work isn't "art" because they can use it to win or score points.
By generally accepted definitions almost anything can be considered art.
If it is truly mandatory, I think the company should pay for at least a part of it.
If it is specific to your current job and employer, but is otherwise not useful to you the company should pay.
If it is general training that is more personal development, the company can consider paying, but they could fairly go either way.
The real question is if you're short term commodity staff, or a long term member of core staff. If they consider you part of their team, they should invest in you. If they consider you a replacable generic commodity, then they shouldn't.
By not investing in you, the company is showing how much they really value you.
That being said, if you supervisor values you above the corporate philosophy he might permit you some time to work on some of this stuff. What's a few hours a week if you're improving your work performance. Also it gives a good opportunity to be simultanously considering how to apply your new training to the company problems, as well as encourage other to seek out more training.
but they have no retail business on their own
I have to disagree, I've physically been inside a Sony Style Store.
Which in Canada is run by Sony of Canada.
Well, there still are candidates in politics who stick to their principles.
I'd vote for them and donate to them.
Quite honestly the lobby and advocacy groups are great for pushing issues, but if you don't have good people in government to listen to them, their efforts are wasted.
Well this is why I have 2 different credit cards and bank accounts at two separate institutions.
1. I use my credit cards, they caught suspicious activity once, killed the card and called me immediately. I got a new card within a few days, in the meantime I had my other card.
2. I had trouble with my bank once, just walked over to my other bank and they gave me a small Line of Credit on the spot. I never plan on being tied to a single institution again.
Personally I don't touch debit cards, I only use it to go and deposit paychecks or occasionally withdraw money. For almost everything I simply use my credit card. I don't understand why anyone would choose to use a debit card over a credit card.
Credit card gives me money back, I know fraudulent transactions are caught, and I get a free 30+ day loan on everything I buy.
The arguement used to push this law is cognitive load.
The reason is specifically to deny the "special course" as a reasonable exception.
For certain professional drivers they've allowed a transition time to develop and deploy the new technologies.
For police etc I'm not sure what the logic is, unless they want to claim that they will limit access during "higher risk" situations with policy and procedure, rather than the blanket ban they are imposing on everyone else.
Having seen people text, read email, shave and even carry their pets on their laps while driving, I understand why they need a law like this.
As far as the handheld cell phone drivers, most people can't drive as it is. The phones certainly aren't helping.
There is a phase in period for taxi and trucking companies because they don't have effective solutions yet.
The hands free devices don't exist, so they're not mandating them.. yet.