Getting your fix just before launching is OK, since you have to surface anyway to launch.
The exact depth you can launch from is classified, but even the Poseidon missile could be ejected from the submarine and the engine ignited when it was a safe distance away.
Anyway, the inertial guidance system on a nuclear missile can be run 24/7, so it makes sense to keep the guidance running in all your missiles and phase lock them with the boat's guidance system.
Military inertial guidance systems can drop a warhead within tens of meters after being flung at ballistic speeds. At the maximum speed of a sub, averaging all the guidance systems of all the missiles on board can get you to within a centimeter or so.*
*Note: My info is 30 years out of date, things might be much better now.
That's probably his basis for believing might be his. Someone said to him "What's this", and he said, "A camera from the moon.", then they said "Ok, keep it"
He didn't get it in writing, nor, I imagine, did he verify that the person who said "Keep it", had the authority to allow him to keep it.
The ISS has a three person escape pod, a Soyuz capsule that is kept there at all times. (I don't know if they rotate them, but I imagine they do)
The Antarctic bases wouldn't need every kind of plane to be available, just one that could get several people out during really bad weather. A small plane in a heated hanger would fit the bill. Just enough to get to another air strip where regular planes can get to. It could be rotated out every summer.
The risk of harm to patients is judged to be low despite the data elements involved since retrieving the data on the tapes would require knowledge of and access to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data structure.
I've worked with some weird systems before, but none so weird that I'd consider it that hard to get something off the tape. Even if the data structures are too strange to find everything, you might be able to link names with SSNs.
If you want to hold for a duration and take profits over the span of years, just hope you don;'t need to cash out on the same day as the machines have decided they see opportunity in trashing your holdings.
If you diversify your holdings, and sell over time, you don't have much risk from this. When you are young, you should be investing in higher risk investments, but as retirements looms, you should move your holdings into guaranteed vehicles, like bonds. As all this happens over years, HFT shouldn't affect you too much. "Cashing out" is not part of a sane investment strategy.
Do this and you could be a billionaire and a hero, says Henderson."
No, this kind of thinking is a result of the lone inventor myth. "If we just had a great idea, we'd be in milk and honey"
What needs to be done is obvious, and already stated. "a taxonomy, a method to affix material markings, and a database access method". Any decent DBA/programmer could design a scheme to do this. The real work is convincing corporations to go along, when there is no obvious quick return on investment. Who would be the first to put their company at a competitive disadvantage in a down economy? (Hard enough in an up economy) The billions that Henderson is talking about have to come from somewhere.
You could set up a company similar to UL labs, that would affix a golden seal to products that met these criteria, then get large organizations on board to set rules that they will give preference to products that have the seal. Not impossible, but the mountains to climb are political (corporate and government), rather than technical.
It's always worked this way, but in the long run, the math doesn't work for the HFT to make money. The second time this happens, the same buyer (who has his own analysis program) doesn't buy, causing the HFT to sell at a loss.
Try writing some simulations that pit several HFT's against each other. In the end the amount of money in the system must remain constant. (plus any value added to the system)
In you simulations have sane traders, insane traders, sane HFTs and insane HFTs. What you'll find is the sane traders and sane HFTs will have the value proportional to the market, and some of the insane will make money and some will lose. Declare the losers to be wrong and the winners to be geniuses, rinse, lather, repeat.
You seem to imagine that these are two or more large rich people duking it out to corner the Orange Juice market.
Sometimes it is, but mostly it's public companies, or LLCs that gather other people's money and trade it for them. Once you take someone else's money, you have contractual obligations both specified and from law.
Regulators are there to make sure that you don't promise grandma one thing, get her to sign a contract that says something else, and then do a third thing entirely.
Conservations argue that grandma no matter how addled, should be allowed to make her own decisions and is fully capable of determining the outcome of those decisions.
Liberals think that smart people can determine for grandma what's good for her.
Unfortunately, high speed trading has two pathological cases. Panic selling, and irrationally exuberant buying. Neither is good for a whole economy. Both can make the "Black Swan" investor loads of money, but it's not so good for your average pensioner who needs his money to grow steadily and surely.
If you're a seller, you want to sell at the maximum price. But... you want to sell. By selling to the first bidder that meets your price, you gain an advantage over the next seller who might have to sell at a lower price.
Stocks are bought and sold in chunks, the math has step functions.
The trouble is that the current players are making obscene amounts of money using the system so they want things to stay the same or faster. Even though there are money managers like Warren Buffet that do well investing for the long term, there are plenty of others that convince people to invest with them for the short term.
How do you know that that money ever makes it to any of the states in question? Just because they are collecting it doesn't mean they are sending the correct amount to the correct state.
That's why Amazon doesn't really want to win this case. Collecting sales tax could be a headache for them, but a killer for a potential competitor. Large companies want steep barriers to entry...
How do you know the Notaries are who they say they are?
There was a plan, over a decade ago, where the US Post Office would issue certs to people, sort of the way they issue passports now. You'd go to a PO in person, verify you are you, and they issue you a cert on a floppy. (It was that long ago)
Not a completely bad idea. I wouldn't trust any random POcert to be who they say they are, just that Xyzzy today, is the same Xyzzy as yesterday, unless their cert has been revoked.
From there, you set up a chain or web of trust. I know my friend certs, they know people and so on. If a cert is compromised, the Post Office can revoke it and let everyone know.
If you show that the most efficient energy source is also the cheapest...
The cheapest energy source is the one where you can push most of the cost to someone else. Preferably, either a future someone else, or someone else in another country.
Look at the pet choice to determine the likelihood of a family having an autistic child. If the family has cats, (or just fish or reptiles), they're more likely to have children with autism than a family who has several social dogs.
Or, you could put a smaller reactor *and* a smaller battery. The battery would provide acceleration, and the reactor would run the car at highway speed and recharge the battery. The battery would also get the whole process started.
A competent cyber-warrior would be more like the CIA or KGB, i.e. perform your objective and don't get caught.
Imagine a country needs money. They could manipulate the markets in a way that regular corporations would like to, but can't.
A large country could have it's industry build large amounts of generators, crash another country's power grid, then sell the panicked population the generators that they just luckily happen to have on hand.
Money is like air. You need enough to survive, too much and and you're blown away. If you don't have enough air, throwing more air at the problem seems like the right solution.
The trick is figuring out where the actual problem is. If you don't have enough money to hire a great Principle or Teacher for your school, you might settle for Nth best. Then after the school is filled with dysfunctional admins and teachers, giving those people more money certainly won't fix the problem.
I had a friend who was an education Ed.D. candidate. She did a lot of studies of studies and for the most part found that any new education initiative could have a large positive impact, but it was all the Hawthorne Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect Young, idealistic, teachers could make any new program work, but once it was filtered down to regular schools, there was no difference in student achievement. Study, after study, and basically the kids do as well in school and after as their parents did.
Putting money to redirect "how public education dollars are spent", isn't going to help, if we don't know how to do better.
You'd probably do better to judge a school based on how happy the students and parents are. If the S&P's are unhappy, fire the principle and try a new one until the "customers" are happy. Frankly, if the students are happy with school, and actually going, then learning will happen. You have to actively beat down a human to keep it from learning, but that's exactly what many schools do.
If your human child can't communicate at all, he can't vote. Same for your army of slug children.
So let's create an army of dog-children. Unfortunately, what if they don't vote as you tell them to. That, and if your opponent releases a squirrel at the voting precinct, would foil your evil plans.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting your fix just before launching is OK, since you have to surface anyway to launch.
The exact depth you can launch from is classified, but even the Poseidon missile could be ejected from the submarine and the engine ignited when it was a safe distance away.
Anyway, the inertial guidance system on a nuclear missile can be run 24/7, so it makes sense to keep the guidance running in all your missiles and phase lock them with the boat's guidance system.
Military inertial guidance systems can drop a warhead within tens of meters after being flung at ballistic speeds. At the maximum speed of a sub, averaging all the guidance systems of all the missiles on board can get you to within a centimeter or so.*
*Note: My info is 30 years out of date, things might be much better now.
That's probably his basis for believing might be his. Someone said to him "What's this", and he said, "A camera from the moon.", then they said "Ok, keep it"
He didn't get it in writing, nor, I imagine, did he verify that the person who said "Keep it", had the authority to allow him to keep it.
The ISS has a three person escape pod, a Soyuz capsule that is kept there at all times. (I don't know if they rotate them, but I imagine they do)
The Antarctic bases wouldn't need every kind of plane to be available, just one that could get several people out during really bad weather. A small plane in a heated hanger would fit the bill. Just enough to get to another air strip where regular planes can get to. It could be rotated out every summer.
It's easy to take risk when a rich daddy has your back.
The risk of harm to patients is judged to be low despite the data elements involved since retrieving the data on the tapes would require knowledge of and access to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data structure.
I've worked with some weird systems before, but none so weird that I'd consider it that hard to get something off the tape. Even if the data structures are too strange to find everything, you might be able to link names with SSNs.
"former ... representative Bob Inglis"
I've heard a lot of politicians talking sense, but they are always *former* office holders.
No human with skin in the game can tell the truth (the whole truth). It is against nature.
If you want to hold for a duration and take profits over the span of years, just hope you don;'t need to cash out on the same day as the machines have decided they see opportunity in trashing your holdings.
If you diversify your holdings, and sell over time, you don't have much risk from this. When you are young, you should be investing in higher risk investments, but as retirements looms, you should move your holdings into guaranteed vehicles, like bonds. As all this happens over years, HFT shouldn't affect you too much. "Cashing out" is not part of a sane investment strategy.
Do this and you could be a billionaire and a hero, says Henderson."
No, this kind of thinking is a result of the lone inventor myth. "If we just had a great idea, we'd be in milk and honey"
What needs to be done is obvious, and already stated. "a taxonomy, a method to affix material markings, and a database access method". Any decent DBA/programmer could design a scheme to do this. The real work is convincing corporations to go along, when there is no obvious quick return on investment. Who would be the first to put their company at a competitive disadvantage in a down economy? (Hard enough in an up economy) The billions that Henderson is talking about have to come from somewhere.
You could set up a company similar to UL labs, that would affix a golden seal to products that met these criteria, then get large organizations on board to set rules that they will give preference to products that have the seal. Not impossible, but the mountains to climb are political (corporate and government), rather than technical.
It's always worked this way, but in the long run, the math doesn't work for the HFT to make money. The second time this happens, the same buyer (who has his own analysis program) doesn't buy, causing the HFT to sell at a loss.
Try writing some simulations that pit several HFT's against each other. In the end the amount of money in the system must remain constant. (plus any value added to the system)
In you simulations have sane traders, insane traders, sane HFTs and insane HFTs. What you'll find is the sane traders and sane HFTs will have the value proportional to the market, and some of the insane will make money and some will lose. Declare the losers to be wrong and the winners to be geniuses, rinse, lather, repeat.
You seem to imagine that these are two or more large rich people duking it out to corner the Orange Juice market.
Sometimes it is, but mostly it's public companies, or LLCs that gather other people's money and trade it for them. Once you take someone else's money, you have contractual obligations both specified and from law.
Regulators are there to make sure that you don't promise grandma one thing, get her to sign a contract that says something else, and then do a third thing entirely.
Conservations argue that grandma no matter how addled, should be allowed to make her own decisions and is fully capable of determining the outcome of those decisions.
Liberals think that smart people can determine for grandma what's good for her.
They're both wrong...
Unfortunately, high speed trading has two pathological cases. Panic selling, and irrationally exuberant buying. Neither is good for a whole economy. Both can make the "Black Swan" investor loads of money, but it's not so good for your average pensioner who needs his money to grow steadily and surely.
If you're a seller, you want to sell at the maximum price. But... you want to sell. By selling to the first bidder that meets your price, you gain an advantage over the next seller who might have to sell at a lower price.
Stocks are bought and sold in chunks, the math has step functions.
The trouble is that the current players are making obscene amounts of money using the system so they want things to stay the same or faster. Even though there are money managers like Warren Buffet that do well investing for the long term, there are plenty of others that convince people to invest with them for the short term.
How do you know that that money ever makes it to any of the states in question? Just because they are collecting it doesn't mean they are sending the correct amount to the correct state.
That's why Amazon doesn't really want to win this case. Collecting sales tax could be a headache for them, but a killer for a potential competitor. Large companies want steep barriers to entry...
How do you know the Notaries are who they say they are?
There was a plan, over a decade ago, where the US Post Office would issue certs to people, sort of the way they issue passports now. You'd go to a PO in person, verify you are you, and they issue you a cert on a floppy. (It was that long ago)
Not a completely bad idea. I wouldn't trust any random POcert to be who they say they are, just that Xyzzy today, is the same Xyzzy as yesterday, unless their cert has been revoked.
From there, you set up a chain or web of trust. I know my friend certs, they know people and so on. If a cert is compromised, the Post Office can revoke it and let everyone know.
If you show that the most efficient energy source is also the cheapest...
The cheapest energy source is the one where you can push most of the cost to someone else. Preferably, either a future someone else, or someone else in another country.
Ah, I see that on their "Guidelines" page, but no mention in the "Terms of use" page.
Next Question: Why?
What is it about Kickstarter that makes it not applicable to charities?
Look at the pet choice to determine the likelihood of a family having an autistic child. If the family has cats, (or just fish or reptiles), they're more likely to have children with autism than a family who has several social dogs.
Or, you could put a smaller reactor *and* a smaller battery. The battery would provide acceleration, and the reactor would run the car at highway speed and recharge the battery. The battery would also get the whole process started.
One of Robert Heinlein's kid's books had boy scouts building a thorium powered rocket that beat the commies to the moon.
A competent cyber-warrior would be more like the CIA or KGB, i.e. perform your objective and don't get caught.
Imagine a country needs money. They could manipulate the markets in a way that regular corporations would like to, but can't.
A large country could have it's industry build large amounts of generators, crash another country's power grid, then sell the panicked population the generators that they just luckily happen to have on hand.
Money is like air. You need enough to survive, too much and and you're blown away. If you don't have enough air, throwing more air at the problem seems like the right solution.
The trick is figuring out where the actual problem is. If you don't have enough money to hire a great Principle or Teacher for your school, you might settle for Nth best. Then after the school is filled with dysfunctional admins and teachers, giving those people more money certainly won't fix the problem.
I had a friend who was an education Ed.D. candidate. She did a lot of studies of studies and for the most part found that any new education initiative could have a large positive impact, but it was all the Hawthorne Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect Young, idealistic, teachers could make any new program work, but once it was filtered down to regular schools, there was no difference in student achievement. Study, after study, and basically the kids do as well in school and after as their parents did.
Putting money to redirect "how public education dollars are spent", isn't going to help, if we don't know how to do better.
You'd probably do better to judge a school based on how happy the students and parents are. If the S&P's are unhappy, fire the principle and try a new one until the "customers" are happy. Frankly, if the students are happy with school, and actually going, then learning will happen. You have to actively beat down a human to keep it from learning, but that's exactly what many schools do.
If your human child can't communicate at all, he can't vote. Same for your army of slug children.
So let's create an army of dog-children. Unfortunately, what if they don't vote as you tell them to. That, and if your opponent releases a squirrel at the voting precinct, would foil your evil plans.