The first and second are true. It is the third I suggest requires strict examination.
In first, we should be confident that we understand the problem at least reasonably well. This may be miniscule, but that's okay; you can have only the understanding that you see what you see, and that it has implications, and that you know very little of what you're doing, and this is a reasonable understanding of the problem. What is unreasonable is to see the problem and begin proposing solutions immediately with the assumption that you know how to fix it.
In second, we should be prepared to defend both why our solutions improve things and how our solutions will fall against determined evasion, and at what cost. In effect, if we did something right and useful or something only minimally damaging, it is cheaper for the interests we're pressuring to bow to the pressure, and we can assess the effectiveness or the damage done from there; whereas if we did something completely and totally wrong, we should have an expectation of bounded costs that come up as businesses and consumers avoid our regulations by taking the penalty. Often the latter leads to businesses pushing a penalty onto consumers, which we can recognize quickly and move to undo.
And in final, we should continue to examine the effects of the measures we take and adjust them to be more strict, more or less weighted, more or less biased, etc. Narrow or widen profit margins a business can feasibly extract without triggering a penalty, stiffen the penalties so that businesses don't just take it and raise consumer costs to cover, add or remove penalty conditions based on whether some are ridiculous and not helpful or others are sorely needed. In all cases, of course, take the same careful approach: the initial sample should look rather encouraging, but not snap so hard that businesses are universally better off just taking the hit as an extra tax. Find what they'll find agreeable to work inside, then tighten the reins a little to more strongly encourage them to stay in line.
No dictation and no unreasonably stiff or specific penalties should exist without very good reason. Obviously outright false and intentional misleading of consumers, child labor, and the like carries heavy, business-sinking penalties. Overcharging students for tuition, on the other hand, would be better off carrying a tax burden... or maybe having a bound that works based on operating costs, and a special tax status that reduces tax burden in a significant way. If you overstep that, you lose profits until you raise tuition sharply--which creates consumer outrage. If that's the only way to survive, it should be doable; but it should be seen as bad business sense as well. When the market settles in and you have enough data to see what your impact is on higher education viability (in both small and large, new and established businesses), make the tax penalty stronger to discourage future new business trends that break this plan; at that point, nobody will care because nobody will be triggering those penalties.
It's all very complex. Instead of dictating what businesses should do or making it outright economically infeasible to do certain things, you put up impedance to things you don't want them to do and you give them other, low-impedance channels to stay in line with your ideals. They can fight against your regulations, and that's perfectly fine; they will pay for the privilege, too. Tax incentives and other such baits should draw them into other behaviors, though, as an easier path to follow. If the market strongly disagrees with you, they'll do what you're trying to control anyway; if the market only weakly disagrees, it will shift as you suggest it to.
In communism, the government holds reins on the market and dictates activity.
In free-market capitalism, big money holders find ways to hold reins on the market and dictate activity.
Communism is arguably better, except that it's really identical aside from trading "vicious, self-serving market leaders" for "brain dead, incompetent market leaders." It turns out putting idiots in charge is just as bad as putting tyrants in charge.
It is thus sensible that we would occasionally look at a situation, knee jerk "That's Not Fair(TM)," and then calmly and rationally begin to investigate the unfairness to determine if we can make it fair without doing too much damage. Every time we try to regulate something, there is a cost... but there are already economic costs, like the out-of-control prices of college tuition and books, or the decoupling of rental property rates from rental operating costs (if there is more money in the area, rent prices go up and the poor get pushed out--in other words, it will always be expensive to live decently, and the middle class will likely continue to shrink while the poverty line continues to raise). Fixing any of these things is dangerous; they're already broken, but you can do far worse.
HFT is one of these things. It has an economic cost I'm not very interested in (I dislike the practice, but not on any specifically well researched basis), but to regulate it away would also have economic costs. You have to determine if those costs are in excess of the social and economic value gained by eliminating HFT before you even begin to regulate it.
This is in line with the findings of most serious studies. The intuitions of most laymen fail them because they do not understand market dynamics.
The layman explanation for the market is "One person gets richer off another idiot getting poorer." I get rich by selling my overvalued shit to some tard and then buying some undervalued shit from some other tard. Those guys lose money buying high and selling low. Long positions work one way, buy low from idiot who is undervaluing and sell high to idiot who is overvaluing; short positions work by selling high to idiot who is overvaluing and then buying low back from him after he's lost money. As the market cycles, long positions eventually tick over with someone buying high near peak and losing their ass; short positions are taken by the smart investor up at the top, and directly operate along the crash cycle.
Thus it stands to reason that if HFT makes one entity richer, it must make another entity poorer.
If your statement is true, then it is also true that if the OS can run a native executable built for itself faster than another OS running that same executable (this time foreign), something is wrong with the OS running the foreign executable. It really shouldn't be slower.
If BSD can emulate linux faster than linux can run, something is very, very bad going on.
Why? It just means BSD is faster somewhere than Linux, that's all.
Nothing is "emulated." Wine does not "emulate" windows, either. Wine supplies a dynamic link loader that brings up PE executables. It also supplies a set of libraries for Windows-- Wine is a Windows re-implementation. It comes with an msvcrt that supplies strcpy() and strlen() and open() and such. It comes with kernel32.dll. It comes with everything.
Unix systems that have other Unix system execution layers basically keep an additional syscall table around. BSD loads a Linux ELF executable, recognizes it's for 32-bit Linux, and sets its syscall entry point to the Linux table. All POSIX functions mostly route to BSD's innards, just like the native BSD table. A few tricky things supply a little translation layer--we might see data come by in format [xxx][yyyy][zzz] and we expect it in [xxx][pad][yyyy][zzzz] so it's padded properly, or something equally as banal. Some specialized functions are implemented for Linux, using BSD facilities to approximate.
In the end, you have an operating system that capably loads binaries under a specific API, not an emulator.
Ubuntu is known to be particularly slow. There was a long standing bug "Firefox takes 17 seconds to load; Firefox binary downloaded from official site takes 3" but I switched to Chromium last year.
Don't care. Society is not charity; charity is part of society. The USPS has a huge cost to society, as does anything else--the inflated price of college, the over-used duty cycles on cars, bank and realtor schemes to convince everyone that owning is better than renting (shittiest "investment" ever), gentrification and inflated rent prices.
In the case of college and renters, it's the charging for a service because they can--because people exist with more money and the area is desirable (renting) or because you "need" a college degree to get a job paying enough to survive. Cars and houses are more of an education thing (drive less, rent until you have a specific need and highly favorable conditions to own). Both of these create a large economic cost to society, called "economic rent." This is the increase in cost without providing an increase in value of services offered.
The USPS, on the other hand, is legally sheltered by the government. It's protected from competition, and was so protected while it was favorable. It's like if the government wrote laws saying, for example, that only Microsoft could sell operating systems for bundling on PCs, and that any third party installing any OS on a PC must pay Microsoft for the cost of Windows (even if it's Linux or whatever). The USPS is the only courier allowed to deliver general purpose post--the USPS couldn't overnight letters at the time, so the law allows other companies to provide overnight letter delivery. If you deliver to a mailbox marked "US Mail" or "USPS"--even a milk crate I painted "US MAIL" on--you must pay postage.
Cut those laws and FedEx/USP/DHL will learn to deliver mail effectively. Then the USPS will collapse on its own. I am hoping that with its death throes Congress will open up the market for competition so that it doesn't leave a vacancy in the market for a needed service.
UPS would charge too much because it is illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver a letter unless it is mailed overnight. It is illegal to put anything in a mailbox marked "US Mail" or "USPS" without paying postage--if FedEx delivers it, if DHL delivers it, if you deliver it, you better put postage on it, because God dammit, the USPS will get paid for the use of a USPS destination mail box! It was almost illegal to overnight letters, but the USPS couldn't actually supply the service at the time and so the law covering that left a gap due to skillful business arguments and pressure.
UPS doesn't have facilities to handle normal mail because it's illegal for UPS to have facilities to handle normal mail. Thus it would be unprofitable for them to not charge you a fuckton for normal mail at the moment. Thus if the USPS craters, hopefully the law will change soon enough for UPS and FedEx to catch up to USPS in function, and we can all live happily ever after.
USPS comes out of stamp money, not government money. The government doesn't support the USPS except by ridiculous legislation that supports a monopoly business, and needs to be excised. The laws in place stifle all competition against the USPS and they need to change.
Maybe gravity and other forces have an effect on how fast matter decays, possibly as gravitational drag affects particles with mass such as neutrons... you know, like how they "Proved" relativity by putting a clock on a plane and firing afterburners, and saying it ran slower than the clock on the ground. Has nothing to do with the Gs applied to the clock.
A part of the product is retained (even if it's disposed of), rather than sold on. If I buy things and throw them away, I'm liable for paying sales tax.
They need a sales tax license, and they need to have the product for "resale" to avoid paying sales tax themselves upon purchase. This sort of tampering may place them under requirement to pay sales tax on the product, rather than reselling it as a new product--they're not authorized to alter it and resell it....
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Yes, of course. Too much entitlement, too much nanny state, too much incapable of accepting the risk of death of 0.1% of children and so instating policy that ensures the death of 0.5% in teenage years and leaves 50% or more completely unprepared for life.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Can't make anything perfect you know. Ideally, people around you would be virtuous enough to come to your aid if you can't protect yourself; in reality we know this isn't going to happen, so we try to raise the individual likelihood (to a still unfortunately low level) and broaden the scope (i.e. EVERYONE) to load the dice. 'cause that's how I roll.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
You seem to be aiming but still missing. The solutions are non-trivial, and nothing insanely simple works. Nothing actually is correct, nor will you ever find a quick fix. You're thinking, though... think more. Find the holes, break your own models.
I pit everything against everything else to strike balance. Human greed is the biggest motivator, and that's... actually probably the luckiest break we have. It's very easy to control, because it's the only thing you need to bait. Money leads to power, confidence, and sex for most people, and is therefor extremely salient.
I'm very economics focused, but I spend a LOT of time thinking about this stuff. I solve social problems in similar ways. My views on gun control, for example, are that we must require permits for CCW or OCW, requiring licensing by taking a battery of classes--firearms self defense, home defense, firearms maintenance, and even marksmanship (I don't want stray bullets flying around). If you can use it and you're not a convicted felon, you can have it; if you're a hick trying to put a gun under your pillow in case someone breaks into your house... I dislike this. I feel that's a balanced way to handle things.
It goes further than that, though. On one hand, you have the looming problem that everyone might have a gun; that anyone who legally carries a firearm damn well knows how to use it properly; and that firearms attract attention, and people will come find you if you shoot someone. On the other, I don't believe that guns are the final solution to everything, and I don't believe in giving everyone a gun and assuming we're now balanced. Women carry pepper spray to defend themselves and I consider them to have absolutely no protection; I feel the same way about a gun, for the most part.
So I am a proponent of martial arts training. For everyone. In school. Start off with basic stuff to learn to break holds (tae kwan do), move into soft arts (Judo, Aikido). In middle school we should start giving students options, to take a weapon--including fists (mandate a hard art like Muay Thai must be taken in that case). You can play with a few--bokken, jo, bo, nunchaku, three sectioned staff--and decide what you like; there will be a primary focus.
So, after all this, what do we have?
Well, in the current society, what I see is people who are taught that "violence is bad." They are afraid of everything. They "don't want to get involved" in anything. They'll ignore people getting raped or beaten to death, just keep their distance, often not even call the police. The bystander effect is disgusting. At the same time, you have a few people playing the role of overgrown school yard bullies--everyone is weak, threaten them and they will give you everything. Rape and mugging is an easy career; the police are ineffective at stopping a crime in progress, and can only find and arrest people they can actually identify, locate, and catch.
With what I've described, I change the game a little. Martial arts training serves to give people both confidence and fear. You wouldn't attack someone if 6 other people in the room were ready to kick your ass for it. For that matter, when it's one on one, maybe you can win this fight... bleeding, bruised, possibly with a broken arm. How do you think rape goes when the rapist gets his arm broken, but still "wins"? Less attractive prospect? And of course, when you see something you feel is wrong... you also don't feel defenseless; more people would be ready to step in where they're needed.
Yeah, it's still a violent world... and you need social constraints--society needs its moral compass. You need to keep this society from degrading into mob rule and thug society, which is easier than you think (civil society is a natural progression because it's more secure than a collection of gangs and thugs). But I feel this is a -less- violent world and--more importantly--a less unfortuna
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
"The Rich are getting Richer" "Not hiring"... you do realize that there's a difference between personal wealth and businesses, right? Everyone muddles these, then they want to tax "The Rich" and that means they want Microsoft and Apple and Exxon to pay all the bills--a horrible idea. As opposed to Warren Buffet and Donald Trump, people with private fortunes. Two different entities.
That... is only a sobering statement. It has no bearing on the remainder of this post.
Goldman Sachs and other big-ass bankers, the auto industry, and so on are engaged in the industry of "Getting Lots of Money." The Auto industry not so much as a holdings--banks hold money--but Sachs and the Motrgage industry especially. Sachs causes economic collapse and draws money to itself, most recently by selling CDOs laced with toxic debt, as well as by getting exceptions for themselves and 14 others to bid on food and oil futures (this is where the price of oil and food go through the roof: too many speculators; oil is around $35/barrel, the $87 figure you see is the commodities version of the stock market, as solid goods are being played like stocks). Auto manufacturers rely on you wearing your car out and buying a brand new car.
These processes do things to the economy. Overall, the economy becomes more poor. There is less money--less WEALTH, monetary wealth--to go around. Sure, more dollars... more worthless dollars. But you know what? Sachs has 800 billion more worthless dollars, worth 600 billion in last-decade's dollars. The economy has less wealth, dollars are worth less--but most of the remainder went to Goldman Sachs, therefor they came out richer even though everyone else AND the whole god damn system INCLUDING them came out poorer. There is less, but they have more of what's left.
The same goes for food speculation. The same goes for driving an expensive (i.e. $15000) car and putting more miles on it when you could drive a cheap motorcycle ($4000) or a scooter ($1000) or ride a bicycle with a much lower operating cost--in part to its lower purchase price, in smaller part due to maintenance and/or fuel use. If you biked 1/3 of your driving (say... because it's all stuff that's about 3-5 miles away... maybe you eliminated your work commute), the car company would get less money--you'd buy a new car every 10 or 15 years instead of every 6-8 years--but you would have more money, you could pad your emergency fund, climb out of debt, buy more crap... more resources to spend on everything else. With that spending, you buy things of value to you--and as you still have efficient transportation that's of no inconvenience to you, you're adding value to your life without destroying other value. That means wealth.
The rich are getting rich, big businesses are drawing in more revenue, and the economy is losing wealth because of it. Investors are becoming risk-averse, so they won't invest money into small businesses and ventures that are risky because they may lose it. Small businesses are more risky because fewer people have jobs and there is less money at the bottom, so fewer people will buy into novelty. This means that, yes, the Investment Bankers drive this country... and THEY are becoming risk averse, protecting their monetary wealth, and squeezing down wealth out of the country further because the economy is already sick and novelty is too risky to invest in.
Spiraling economy. The economy is supposed to encourage the fabulously wealthy to become like Sir Richard Branson (of Virgin Group), edging their way into all sorts of new and interesting ventures on a bet they won't lose money in the long run. It's failing that, and thus there are no new ventures popping up to supply new jobs. Take it out from there. The fabulously wealthy individuals are afraid their businesses will collapse and their salaries will be endangered if they invest in too much stuff, so they aren't investing in new businesses, and thus aren't creating jobs.
Oh, of course. Prisoners have a right to a comfortable living condition. You get an articulate room mate, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, sunlight, a library, Internet, a guaranteed job, you even get to form organized sports teams to play in Prison League--even against other prisons! Your living expenses are paid, you get medical, you get education, lots of leisure, and sometimes in-cell TV.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Efficient use of resources is in itself what's caused the "problem" we now face of there not being enough work to go around.
The real problem is too much risk aversion. The spiraling economy is causing even worse risk aversion. We need businesses willing to try out new ventures, but do you see that shit happening? Where is the next XM, or the next Amazon, or Microsoft? The ground-breakers that did something new, or at least pushed something small and niche into the consumer market thinking "I can totally sell this to the masses." Anyone who isn't Power Balance.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Disastrous. Price-wage push occurs on a normal increase in minimum wage; reducing work hours and increasing wage will result in flat out shrinking businesses or an incredible price inflation. How do you imagine businesses running on 3% operating profits are going to handle suddenly doubling their operating costs?
Stupid liberals are even nuttier than stupid Republicans (trying to call themselves "Conservatives" bah, they're only less liberal and more authoritarian). On top of it, nobody in office understands shit about economics anymore.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
The end result is that the US as a country can either push the unemployed to the street or the government can support them. Maybe with make-work jobs (one group digs holes, the next group fills them in), maybe with just a check so they can sit at home and watch the Home Shopping Channel.
War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself.
Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end—To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
What will you say, Moniteur Industriel—what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?
I adhere as strongly as I can to such principles. In practice, I like to create a surplus of wealth such that the market looks for a way to waste it. Servants, pool boys, gardeners, the like... to pay people to dig holes and fill them in again, we must tax the people or print money. In the case of printing money, inflation occurs; this is similar to taxation, as we are denying people wealth (by devaluing their dollars rather than taking them away).
Therefor I say that a society which can support useless government supplied jobs has a surplus of wealth; and a society in which the middle class does not have the money to hire maids, mechanics, landscapers, and the like to tend their yards and clean their houses can no more afford to have their money wrested from their hands or devalued to pay for holes to be dug and filled at no value to themselves. At least wasting my money paying some poor bastard to mow my lawn gets me a mowed lawn and an hour that I can do something else instead of mow my own lawn; paying that money in taxes for someone to dig and fill a hole gets me nothing but less money.
I also point out that, upon suddenly finding itself wealthy, a society becomes a hoarding society. It takes time before people go, "Damn I have too much money... I should spend this money. I'm going to pay this guy to mow my lawn, because screw this." I also point out that businesses will find a way to take advantage of excess money, both to sell products of more marginal value to consumers (why do I want to buy a pool noodle? Oh, because I had money for a pool, and still have money now after buying a pool...) and to produce jobs in support of ventures to find other markets to extract the wealth from society and bring it to themselves.
Effectively, human greed is generating economic activity in this model. I want government to watch, and to impede businesses where they become abusive and powerful (by incentive and regulation, not by heavy taxation), as well as to bait consumers (by tax credits and incentives, mainly; less by taxes i.e. cigarette tax) into more economic behaviors. A very light touch is key, but bring both the carrot and the stick for use against both businesses and consumers as needed; sometimes a little bait is needed, and sometimes you need to hand out a beating.
Lol! Nice one bluefox! Yeah that's one expensive bottle rocket they just lost. I can't even imagine what the advanced electronics components required for those speeds cost to develop alone? As they sure as hell didn't come from Radio Shack!
Eh, it's not a lot of speed. Accounting for doppler shift at higher frequencies than FM band (around 2M the problem starts, but anything in VHF or above is going to get wide-band distortion) would require computer equipment. Actually controlling the plane? Zilog Z80 and a hard real-time microkernel OS. Think like Minix, then you strip out most of the useless crap, add a few small bits of specialized crap, and then add all your control programs to run under that. This is not stock Minix or QNX off the shelf; it's as few lines of code as you can get, to run a stripped down and specialized hardware set, with known and easily organized data storage. Any logging happens in separate hardware, and any sensor data being pushed off goes out an I/O port with no bidirectional communication because, frankly, nobody cares; we're too busy flying a plane to deal with this foolishness, if the logging hardware fails the flight computer doesn't care.
Sure, you have some considerations; but it's surprising how much off-the-shelf stuff could go into this. It's not like you need special diamond matrix data cores.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's skip the ass dance and hear what these fundamental problems are, and how to solve them.
This chain of commentary is exactly what I was looking for.
ROMs are dumped. Buying a board is doable, but the OP was talking about getting at the program data.
The Politician's Soliloquy is:
The first and second are true. It is the third I suggest requires strict examination.
In first, we should be confident that we understand the problem at least reasonably well. This may be miniscule, but that's okay; you can have only the understanding that you see what you see, and that it has implications, and that you know very little of what you're doing, and this is a reasonable understanding of the problem. What is unreasonable is to see the problem and begin proposing solutions immediately with the assumption that you know how to fix it.
In second, we should be prepared to defend both why our solutions improve things and how our solutions will fall against determined evasion, and at what cost. In effect, if we did something right and useful or something only minimally damaging, it is cheaper for the interests we're pressuring to bow to the pressure, and we can assess the effectiveness or the damage done from there; whereas if we did something completely and totally wrong, we should have an expectation of bounded costs that come up as businesses and consumers avoid our regulations by taking the penalty. Often the latter leads to businesses pushing a penalty onto consumers, which we can recognize quickly and move to undo.
And in final, we should continue to examine the effects of the measures we take and adjust them to be more strict, more or less weighted, more or less biased, etc. Narrow or widen profit margins a business can feasibly extract without triggering a penalty, stiffen the penalties so that businesses don't just take it and raise consumer costs to cover, add or remove penalty conditions based on whether some are ridiculous and not helpful or others are sorely needed. In all cases, of course, take the same careful approach: the initial sample should look rather encouraging, but not snap so hard that businesses are universally better off just taking the hit as an extra tax. Find what they'll find agreeable to work inside, then tighten the reins a little to more strongly encourage them to stay in line.
No dictation and no unreasonably stiff or specific penalties should exist without very good reason. Obviously outright false and intentional misleading of consumers, child labor, and the like carries heavy, business-sinking penalties. Overcharging students for tuition, on the other hand, would be better off carrying a tax burden ... or maybe having a bound that works based on operating costs, and a special tax status that reduces tax burden in a significant way. If you overstep that, you lose profits until you raise tuition sharply--which creates consumer outrage. If that's the only way to survive, it should be doable; but it should be seen as bad business sense as well. When the market settles in and you have enough data to see what your impact is on higher education viability (in both small and large, new and established businesses), make the tax penalty stronger to discourage future new business trends that break this plan; at that point, nobody will care because nobody will be triggering those penalties.
It's all very complex. Instead of dictating what businesses should do or making it outright economically infeasible to do certain things, you put up impedance to things you don't want them to do and you give them other, low-impedance channels to stay in line with your ideals. They can fight against your regulations, and that's perfectly fine; they will pay for the privilege, too. Tax incentives and other such baits should draw them into other behaviors, though, as an easier path to follow. If the market strongly disagrees with you, they'll do what you're trying to control anyway; if the market only weakly disagrees, it will shift as you suggest it to.
In communism, the government holds reins on the market and dictates activity.
In free-market capitalism, big money holders find ways to hold reins on the market and dictate activity.
Communism is arguably better, except that it's really identical aside from trading "vicious, self-serving market leaders" for "brain dead, incompetent market leaders." It turns out putting idiots in charge is just as bad as putting tyrants in charge.
It is thus sensible that we would occasionally look at a situation, knee jerk "That's Not Fair(TM)," and then calmly and rationally begin to investigate the unfairness to determine if we can make it fair without doing too much damage. Every time we try to regulate something, there is a cost ... but there are already economic costs, like the out-of-control prices of college tuition and books, or the decoupling of rental property rates from rental operating costs (if there is more money in the area, rent prices go up and the poor get pushed out--in other words, it will always be expensive to live decently, and the middle class will likely continue to shrink while the poverty line continues to raise). Fixing any of these things is dangerous; they're already broken, but you can do far worse.
HFT is one of these things. It has an economic cost I'm not very interested in (I dislike the practice, but not on any specifically well researched basis), but to regulate it away would also have economic costs. You have to determine if those costs are in excess of the social and economic value gained by eliminating HFT before you even begin to regulate it.
This is in line with the findings of most serious studies. The intuitions of most laymen fail them because they do not understand market dynamics.
The layman explanation for the market is "One person gets richer off another idiot getting poorer." I get rich by selling my overvalued shit to some tard and then buying some undervalued shit from some other tard. Those guys lose money buying high and selling low. Long positions work one way, buy low from idiot who is undervaluing and sell high to idiot who is overvaluing; short positions work by selling high to idiot who is overvaluing and then buying low back from him after he's lost money. As the market cycles, long positions eventually tick over with someone buying high near peak and losing their ass; short positions are taken by the smart investor up at the top, and directly operate along the crash cycle.
Thus it stands to reason that if HFT makes one entity richer, it must make another entity poorer.
If your statement is true, then it is also true that if the OS can run a native executable built for itself faster than another OS running that same executable (this time foreign), something is wrong with the OS running the foreign executable. It really shouldn't be slower.
If BSD can emulate linux faster than linux can run, something is very, very bad going on.
Why? It just means BSD is faster somewhere than Linux, that's all.
Nothing is "emulated." Wine does not "emulate" windows, either. Wine supplies a dynamic link loader that brings up PE executables. It also supplies a set of libraries for Windows-- Wine is a Windows re-implementation. It comes with an msvcrt that supplies strcpy() and strlen() and open() and such. It comes with kernel32.dll. It comes with everything.
Unix systems that have other Unix system execution layers basically keep an additional syscall table around. BSD loads a Linux ELF executable, recognizes it's for 32-bit Linux, and sets its syscall entry point to the Linux table. All POSIX functions mostly route to BSD's innards, just like the native BSD table. A few tricky things supply a little translation layer--we might see data come by in format [xxx][yyyy][zzz] and we expect it in [xxx][pad][yyyy][zzzz] so it's padded properly, or something equally as banal. Some specialized functions are implemented for Linux, using BSD facilities to approximate.
In the end, you have an operating system that capably loads binaries under a specific API, not an emulator.
Ubuntu is known to be particularly slow. There was a long standing bug "Firefox takes 17 seconds to load; Firefox binary downloaded from official site takes 3" but I switched to Chromium last year.
Don't care. Society is not charity; charity is part of society. The USPS has a huge cost to society, as does anything else--the inflated price of college, the over-used duty cycles on cars, bank and realtor schemes to convince everyone that owning is better than renting (shittiest "investment" ever), gentrification and inflated rent prices.
In the case of college and renters, it's the charging for a service because they can--because people exist with more money and the area is desirable (renting) or because you "need" a college degree to get a job paying enough to survive. Cars and houses are more of an education thing (drive less, rent until you have a specific need and highly favorable conditions to own). Both of these create a large economic cost to society, called "economic rent." This is the increase in cost without providing an increase in value of services offered.
The USPS, on the other hand, is legally sheltered by the government. It's protected from competition, and was so protected while it was favorable. It's like if the government wrote laws saying, for example, that only Microsoft could sell operating systems for bundling on PCs, and that any third party installing any OS on a PC must pay Microsoft for the cost of Windows (even if it's Linux or whatever). The USPS is the only courier allowed to deliver general purpose post--the USPS couldn't overnight letters at the time, so the law allows other companies to provide overnight letter delivery. If you deliver to a mailbox marked "US Mail" or "USPS"--even a milk crate I painted "US MAIL" on--you must pay postage.
Cut those laws and FedEx/USP/DHL will learn to deliver mail effectively. Then the USPS will collapse on its own. I am hoping that with its death throes Congress will open up the market for competition so that it doesn't leave a vacancy in the market for a needed service.
UPS would charge too much because it is illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver a letter unless it is mailed overnight. It is illegal to put anything in a mailbox marked "US Mail" or "USPS" without paying postage--if FedEx delivers it, if DHL delivers it, if you deliver it, you better put postage on it, because God dammit, the USPS will get paid for the use of a USPS destination mail box! It was almost illegal to overnight letters, but the USPS couldn't actually supply the service at the time and so the law covering that left a gap due to skillful business arguments and pressure.
UPS doesn't have facilities to handle normal mail because it's illegal for UPS to have facilities to handle normal mail. Thus it would be unprofitable for them to not charge you a fuckton for normal mail at the moment. Thus if the USPS craters, hopefully the law will change soon enough for UPS and FedEx to catch up to USPS in function, and we can all live happily ever after.
USPS comes out of stamp money, not government money. The government doesn't support the USPS except by ridiculous legislation that supports a monopoly business, and needs to be excised. The laws in place stifle all competition against the USPS and they need to change.
I was just hoping it would fall apart...
EPR radar maybe.
Maybe gravity and other forces have an effect on how fast matter decays, possibly as gravitational drag affects particles with mass such as neutrons ... you know, like how they "Proved" relativity by putting a clock on a plane and firing afterburners, and saying it ran slower than the clock on the ground. Has nothing to do with the Gs applied to the clock.
A part of the product is retained (even if it's disposed of), rather than sold on. If I buy things and throw them away, I'm liable for paying sales tax.
They need a sales tax license, and they need to have the product for "resale" to avoid paying sales tax themselves upon purchase. This sort of tampering may place them under requirement to pay sales tax on the product, rather than reselling it as a new product--they're not authorized to alter it and resell it....
Yes, of course. Too much entitlement, too much nanny state, too much incapable of accepting the risk of death of 0.1% of children and so instating policy that ensures the death of 0.5% in teenage years and leaves 50% or more completely unprepared for life.
Can't make anything perfect you know. Ideally, people around you would be virtuous enough to come to your aid if you can't protect yourself; in reality we know this isn't going to happen, so we try to raise the individual likelihood (to a still unfortunately low level) and broaden the scope (i.e. EVERYONE) to load the dice. 'cause that's how I roll.
You seem to be aiming but still missing. The solutions are non-trivial, and nothing insanely simple works. Nothing actually is correct, nor will you ever find a quick fix. You're thinking, though ... think more. Find the holes, break your own models.
I pit everything against everything else to strike balance. Human greed is the biggest motivator, and that's ... actually probably the luckiest break we have. It's very easy to control, because it's the only thing you need to bait. Money leads to power, confidence, and sex for most people, and is therefor extremely salient.
I'm very economics focused, but I spend a LOT of time thinking about this stuff. I solve social problems in similar ways. My views on gun control, for example, are that we must require permits for CCW or OCW, requiring licensing by taking a battery of classes--firearms self defense, home defense, firearms maintenance, and even marksmanship (I don't want stray bullets flying around). If you can use it and you're not a convicted felon, you can have it; if you're a hick trying to put a gun under your pillow in case someone breaks into your house ... I dislike this. I feel that's a balanced way to handle things.
It goes further than that, though. On one hand, you have the looming problem that everyone might have a gun; that anyone who legally carries a firearm damn well knows how to use it properly; and that firearms attract attention, and people will come find you if you shoot someone. On the other, I don't believe that guns are the final solution to everything, and I don't believe in giving everyone a gun and assuming we're now balanced. Women carry pepper spray to defend themselves and I consider them to have absolutely no protection; I feel the same way about a gun, for the most part.
So I am a proponent of martial arts training. For everyone. In school. Start off with basic stuff to learn to break holds (tae kwan do), move into soft arts (Judo, Aikido). In middle school we should start giving students options, to take a weapon--including fists (mandate a hard art like Muay Thai must be taken in that case). You can play with a few--bokken, jo, bo, nunchaku, three sectioned staff--and decide what you like; there will be a primary focus.
So, after all this, what do we have?
Well, in the current society, what I see is people who are taught that "violence is bad." They are afraid of everything. They "don't want to get involved" in anything. They'll ignore people getting raped or beaten to death, just keep their distance, often not even call the police. The bystander effect is disgusting. At the same time, you have a few people playing the role of overgrown school yard bullies--everyone is weak, threaten them and they will give you everything. Rape and mugging is an easy career; the police are ineffective at stopping a crime in progress, and can only find and arrest people they can actually identify, locate, and catch.
With what I've described, I change the game a little. Martial arts training serves to give people both confidence and fear. You wouldn't attack someone if 6 other people in the room were ready to kick your ass for it. For that matter, when it's one on one, maybe you can win this fight... bleeding, bruised, possibly with a broken arm. How do you think rape goes when the rapist gets his arm broken, but still "wins"? Less attractive prospect? And of course, when you see something you feel is wrong... you also don't feel defenseless; more people would be ready to step in where they're needed.
Yeah, it's still a violent world ... and you need social constraints--society needs its moral compass. You need to keep this society from degrading into mob rule and thug society, which is easier than you think (civil society is a natural progression because it's more secure than a collection of gangs and thugs). But I feel this is a -less- violent world and--more importantly--a less unfortuna
"The Rich are getting Richer" "Not hiring" ... you do realize that there's a difference between personal wealth and businesses, right? Everyone muddles these, then they want to tax "The Rich" and that means they want Microsoft and Apple and Exxon to pay all the bills--a horrible idea. As opposed to Warren Buffet and Donald Trump, people with private fortunes. Two different entities.
That ... is only a sobering statement. It has no bearing on the remainder of this post.
Goldman Sachs and other big-ass bankers, the auto industry, and so on are engaged in the industry of "Getting Lots of Money." The Auto industry not so much as a holdings--banks hold money--but Sachs and the Motrgage industry especially. Sachs causes economic collapse and draws money to itself, most recently by selling CDOs laced with toxic debt, as well as by getting exceptions for themselves and 14 others to bid on food and oil futures (this is where the price of oil and food go through the roof: too many speculators; oil is around $35/barrel, the $87 figure you see is the commodities version of the stock market, as solid goods are being played like stocks). Auto manufacturers rely on you wearing your car out and buying a brand new car.
These processes do things to the economy. Overall, the economy becomes more poor. There is less money--less WEALTH, monetary wealth--to go around. Sure, more dollars... more worthless dollars. But you know what? Sachs has 800 billion more worthless dollars, worth 600 billion in last-decade's dollars. The economy has less wealth, dollars are worth less--but most of the remainder went to Goldman Sachs, therefor they came out richer even though everyone else AND the whole god damn system INCLUDING them came out poorer. There is less, but they have more of what's left.
The same goes for food speculation. The same goes for driving an expensive (i.e. $15000) car and putting more miles on it when you could drive a cheap motorcycle ($4000) or a scooter ($1000) or ride a bicycle with a much lower operating cost--in part to its lower purchase price, in smaller part due to maintenance and/or fuel use. If you biked 1/3 of your driving (say... because it's all stuff that's about 3-5 miles away... maybe you eliminated your work commute), the car company would get less money--you'd buy a new car every 10 or 15 years instead of every 6-8 years--but you would have more money, you could pad your emergency fund, climb out of debt, buy more crap... more resources to spend on everything else. With that spending, you buy things of value to you--and as you still have efficient transportation that's of no inconvenience to you, you're adding value to your life without destroying other value. That means wealth.
The rich are getting rich, big businesses are drawing in more revenue, and the economy is losing wealth because of it. Investors are becoming risk-averse, so they won't invest money into small businesses and ventures that are risky because they may lose it. Small businesses are more risky because fewer people have jobs and there is less money at the bottom, so fewer people will buy into novelty. This means that, yes, the Investment Bankers drive this country... and THEY are becoming risk averse, protecting their monetary wealth, and squeezing down wealth out of the country further because the economy is already sick and novelty is too risky to invest in.
Spiraling economy. The economy is supposed to encourage the fabulously wealthy to become like Sir Richard Branson (of Virgin Group), edging their way into all sorts of new and interesting ventures on a bet they won't lose money in the long run. It's failing that, and thus there are no new ventures popping up to supply new jobs. Take it out from there. The fabulously wealthy individuals are afraid their businesses will collapse and their salaries will be endangered if they invest in too much stuff, so they aren't investing in new businesses, and thus aren't creating jobs.
Oh, of course. Prisoners have a right to a comfortable living condition. You get an articulate room mate, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, sunlight, a library, Internet, a guaranteed job, you even get to form organized sports teams to play in Prison League--even against other prisons! Your living expenses are paid, you get medical, you get education, lots of leisure, and sometimes in-cell TV.
Efficient use of resources is in itself what's caused the "problem" we now face of there not being enough work to go around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
The real problem is too much risk aversion. The spiraling economy is causing even worse risk aversion. We need businesses willing to try out new ventures, but do you see that shit happening? Where is the next XM, or the next Amazon, or Microsoft? The ground-breakers that did something new, or at least pushed something small and niche into the consumer market thinking "I can totally sell this to the masses." Anyone who isn't Power Balance.
Disastrous. Price-wage push occurs on a normal increase in minimum wage; reducing work hours and increasing wage will result in flat out shrinking businesses or an incredible price inflation. How do you imagine businesses running on 3% operating profits are going to handle suddenly doubling their operating costs?
Stupid liberals are even nuttier than stupid Republicans (trying to call themselves "Conservatives" bah, they're only less liberal and more authoritarian). On top of it, nobody in office understands shit about economics anymore.
The end result is that the US as a country can either push the unemployed to the street or the government can support them. Maybe with make-work jobs (one group digs holes, the next group fills them in), maybe with just a check so they can sit at home and watch the Home Shopping Channel.
War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself.
Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end—To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
What will you say, Moniteur Industriel—what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?
I adhere as strongly as I can to such principles. In practice, I like to create a surplus of wealth such that the market looks for a way to waste it. Servants, pool boys, gardeners, the like ... to pay people to dig holes and fill them in again, we must tax the people or print money. In the case of printing money, inflation occurs; this is similar to taxation, as we are denying people wealth (by devaluing their dollars rather than taking them away).
Therefor I say that a society which can support useless government supplied jobs has a surplus of wealth; and a society in which the middle class does not have the money to hire maids, mechanics, landscapers, and the like to tend their yards and clean their houses can no more afford to have their money wrested from their hands or devalued to pay for holes to be dug and filled at no value to themselves. At least wasting my money paying some poor bastard to mow my lawn gets me a mowed lawn and an hour that I can do something else instead of mow my own lawn; paying that money in taxes for someone to dig and fill a hole gets me nothing but less money.
I also point out that, upon suddenly finding itself wealthy, a society becomes a hoarding society. It takes time before people go, "Damn I have too much money... I should spend this money. I'm going to pay this guy to mow my lawn, because screw this." I also point out that businesses will find a way to take advantage of excess money, both to sell products of more marginal value to consumers (why do I want to buy a pool noodle? Oh, because I had money for a pool, and still have money now after buying a pool...) and to produce jobs in support of ventures to find other markets to extract the wealth from society and bring it to themselves.
Effectively, human greed is generating economic activity in this model. I want government to watch, and to impede businesses where they become abusive and powerful (by incentive and regulation, not by heavy taxation), as well as to bait consumers (by tax credits and incentives, mainly; less by taxes i.e. cigarette tax) into more economic behaviors. A very light touch is key, but bring both the carrot and the stick for use against both businesses and consumers as needed; sometimes a little bait is needed, and sometimes you need to hand out a beating.
Lol! Nice one bluefox! Yeah that's one expensive bottle rocket they just lost. I can't even imagine what the advanced electronics components required for those speeds cost to develop alone? As they sure as hell didn't come from Radio Shack!
Eh, it's not a lot of speed. Accounting for doppler shift at higher frequencies than FM band (around 2M the problem starts, but anything in VHF or above is going to get wide-band distortion) would require computer equipment. Actually controlling the plane? Zilog Z80 and a hard real-time microkernel OS. Think like Minix, then you strip out most of the useless crap, add a few small bits of specialized crap, and then add all your control programs to run under that. This is not stock Minix or QNX off the shelf; it's as few lines of code as you can get, to run a stripped down and specialized hardware set, with known and easily organized data storage. Any logging happens in separate hardware, and any sensor data being pushed off goes out an I/O port with no bidirectional communication because, frankly, nobody cares; we're too busy flying a plane to deal with this foolishness, if the logging hardware fails the flight computer doesn't care.
Sure, you have some considerations; but it's surprising how much off-the-shelf stuff could go into this. It's not like you need special diamond matrix data cores.