With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
That is ok. I just don't want my online comments to affect my real life. I don't want conflict with my boss or coworkers or family because of political comments I made in a forum.
I had a co-worker who posted online in a psychology forum using his real name. Some of those posts were used against him in family court, and he was denied custody of his children.
Only true anonymity, not pseudonymity, can lead to discussions completely detached from identity.
I am fine with identities, I just want more than one.
If you are a seller, how are you going to find a buyer? Craigslist?
Why can't the stock exchange computer do the matching?
The exchanges are made up of their members. The members are brokerages that execute trades on behalf of their clients. You, as an individual, cannot log into the NYSE computer and execute your trade anymore than you could have walked into the pit during the old paper-based days. So why can't you trade with a "member" instead of a HFTer? Because the members are the HFTers. For all practical purposes, the HFTers are the exchange.
It wouldn't matter when in that quantum the order was placed, everyone would be working from the results of the last quantum.
But having a long time window and waiting till the end means you can incorporate more information. If there is a big block trade in London, and you can transmit the information quickly to NYC, you can place your order in the last microsecond of the 30 second window and screw anyone dumb enough to have placed their order earlier... so everyone will wait. So your "time window" will do nothing to discourage HFT.
What other effects will it have? It will increase transaction costs. High Frequency Traders are not investors, they are market makers. They find a willing buyer and a willing seller, arrange the transaction, and execute the trade. They make a profit on the spread between the buy price and the sell price. The problem is that once they locate the buyer and seller, they need to buy the stock from the seller first, then turn around and sell it to the buyer, but the buyer may have cancelled they transaction, or they may have already bought the stock from someone else, in which case the HFT is stuck with the stock and may have to sell it to someone else at a loss. If transactions are granulated to 30 second intervals, instead of say, millisecond intervals, then the risk of this happening is thirty thousand times higher, and the HFTs will insist on higher spreads, resulting in lower liquidity and higher transaction costs for both buyer and seller.
Since the introduction of high frequency trading, transaction costs have fallen considerably, saving plenty of people a lot of money. The only losers are the old market makers that used to have lucrative sweetheart deals with the exchanges. Those old market makers are now bankrupt and gone. Good riddance.
The other option would be to make all markets call markets with 5 second rounds...
That solves nothing. All trades would be placed in the last microsecond, and you would need still need extremely accurate time keeping to ensure an order doesn't slip into the wrong interval.
What absolutely needs to happen is a flat transaction tax on any and all transactions
Then we can all listen to the giant whoosing sound as hundreds of thousands of high paying financial industry jobs leave America for London, Singapore, and Shanghai, as yet another American industry is regulated out of existence.
I have a hard time imagining a stupider thing to tax than reallocation of capital. It will still happen, but mostly inside of private equity groups, outside of public view, and out of reach of the taxman. In 1990 PE was worth $30B. Today it is about $4.5 Trillion.
The right way would be to artificially add a random delay of several minutes, with a reproducible generator based on the orders' hashes and some seed known in advance, to avoid foul play.
That would raise risk for market makers, increase transaction costs for small investors, and push even more big investors into off-shore dark pools.
Before proposing silly "solutions", could you please explain what problem are you trying to solve?
I had to use Windows 10 this week. I'd say MS is a long way from redeemed.
You are conflating incompetence with evil. MS is still incompetent, and their software is still terrible, but their evilness has greatly diminished.
Of course, this is not by choice, but because they no longer have the market power to impose their will. For instance, they have realized they have lost the mapping battle. So they are throwing their data open, at little cost to themselves, as a spoiler for Google and Apple, but to the benefit of the public.
You don't see people illegally parking their cars anywhere they wish
Cars? No. Bicycles? Yes.
I live in San JoseI , and I see scooters as mostly a non-problem. I have never seen one on a crowded sidewalk. In fact, I have never even seen a crowded sidewalk. The car to pedestrian ratio is at least 100:1.
If more people use them to get around without driving a car, then they are a good thing. We don't need more nanny-state government.
Try to show some empathy. There are some impoverished areas in east SJ with median housing prices barely reaching $1M. From 237 to Alum Rock, there is not a single Tesla Supercharging Station east of 680. People should not have to live like that. We should all be concerned.
Our government may not care about hunger, housing, or healthcare, but at least they can make sure we all have equal access to rent-a-scooters.
Whatever happened Blackstone's "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
That is theory. In practice, we have always been willing to tolerate false positives in our justice system. When the Innocence Project first started using DNA evidence to reinvestigate old cases, they found about 10% of convicts couldn't possibly have committed the crimes. Many of them were convicted solely on the basis of coerced confessions. 10% is the floor on the false positive rate. The real percentage of innocents in prison is likely even higher.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
It is unlikely that Einstein ever said that. It was first attributed to him in 1969, 15 years after his death, by someone who had earlier attributed the same quote to someone else.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet just because it is attributed to someone famous." -- Abraham Lincoln.
Indeed. I am sitting in front of a 39 inch 4K external monitor, with about 5 square feet of pixels, and TFA is telling me that a 4 inch phone is "peak screen"?
Nope. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the first few days seem to be the most important. C-section babies have more autoimmune disorders later in life, likely because they are not exposed to bacteria and fungi in the birth canal. Breastfeeders have less problems, likely because they ingest beneficial skin flora from their mothers.
It's a lot harder to fuse 3He then 2H, which would be the first step that we haven't taken.
Indeed. I would like to nominate 3He fusion as "The dumbest idea that is actually taken seriously by anyone."
1. 3He fusion is WAY harder than D-T fusion, and we aren't even close to achieving that. 2. 3He is not "plentiful" on the moon. It is extremely rare, just less so than on earth. 3. There is enough 3He on the moon for 250 years. There is enough Deuterium in the earth's oceans to meet our current needs for several billion years.
H2 has really good energy density per kg (142 Mj/kg, vs 42 for jet fuel) but pretty bad energy density per liter (9 Mj/l vs 37 for jet fuel). So it only makes sense if it can be "burned" at much greater efficiency. A H2 fuel cell is typically about 60% efficiency, vs 36% for the best jets.
Jet fuel can be stored in tanks inside the wings, leaving more space in the fuselage for cargo and passengers. Cryogenic hydrogen needs one big tank inside the fuselage to minimize surface area.
So batteries may make sense for short hops (Boston to NYC, London to Paris), H2 fuel cells for mid-range (Boston to DC, SFO to LAX, London to Berlin), and hydrocarbon jet fuel for long range (London to NYC).
But the really big win would be improving telepresence so there is less need to fly so many aircraft in the first place. Just use the Holodeck for your vacation in Venice.
The absolute best batteries available today are around 1.8 MJ/kg in storage. Compare that with jet fuel which is around 43 MJ/kg. Now cut the range your airplane can fly by a factor of (43/1.8) ~24 and you'll see the issue.
That is not a fair comparison. A battery can convert 95% of its energy to thrust. The best turbofan jets can reach about 36%. So ((43 * 0.36)/(1.8 * 0.95)) = ~ 9.
But that isn't fair either, because when you burn fuel you are no longer carrying the fuel, so the plane gets lighter and uses less fuel per mile further into the journey. The weight of a battery doesn't change. The batteries are deadweight during landing, making landings more dangerous and requiring longer runways.
Batteries need to improve by a roughly a factor of ten to be competitive for long haul aviation. That is unlikely.
A compromise may be to use electrical energy for the takeoff, possibly with a mass driver with the batteries on the ground. This means smaller, quieter, and safer jets (since they don't have to be beefed up for takeoff thrust) as well as shorter runways.
Slashdot Mirror
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
That is ok. I just don't want my online comments to affect my real life. I don't want conflict with my boss or coworkers or family because of political comments I made in a forum.
I had a co-worker who posted online in a psychology forum using his real name. Some of those posts were used against him in family court, and he was denied custody of his children.
Only true anonymity, not pseudonymity, can lead to discussions completely detached from identity.
I am fine with identities, I just want more than one.
Why can't the buyer buy directly from the seller?
If you are a seller, how are you going to find a buyer? Craigslist?
Why can't the stock exchange computer do the matching?
The exchanges are made up of their members. The members are brokerages that execute trades on behalf of their clients. You, as an individual, cannot log into the NYSE computer and execute your trade anymore than you could have walked into the pit during the old paper-based days. So why can't you trade with a "member" instead of a HFTer? Because the members are the HFTers. For all practical purposes, the HFTers are the exchange.
It wouldn't matter when in that quantum the order was placed, everyone would be working from the results of the last quantum.
But having a long time window and waiting till the end means you can incorporate more information. If there is a big block trade in London, and you can transmit the information quickly to NYC, you can place your order in the last microsecond of the 30 second window and screw anyone dumb enough to have placed their order earlier ... so everyone will wait. So your "time window" will do nothing to discourage HFT.
What other effects will it have? It will increase transaction costs. High Frequency Traders are not investors, they are market makers. They find a willing buyer and a willing seller, arrange the transaction, and execute the trade. They make a profit on the spread between the buy price and the sell price. The problem is that once they locate the buyer and seller, they need to buy the stock from the seller first, then turn around and sell it to the buyer, but the buyer may have cancelled they transaction, or they may have already bought the stock from someone else, in which case the HFT is stuck with the stock and may have to sell it to someone else at a loss. If transactions are granulated to 30 second intervals, instead of say, millisecond intervals, then the risk of this happening is thirty thousand times higher , and the HFTs will insist on higher spreads, resulting in lower liquidity and higher transaction costs for both buyer and seller.
Since the introduction of high frequency trading, transaction costs have fallen considerably, saving plenty of people a lot of money. The only losers are the old market makers that used to have lucrative sweetheart deals with the exchanges. Those old market makers are now bankrupt and gone. Good riddance.
The other option would be to make all markets call markets with 5 second rounds...
That solves nothing. All trades would be placed in the last microsecond, and you would need still need extremely accurate time keeping to ensure an order doesn't slip into the wrong interval.
How about just putting all orders received in a certain amount of time (say 30 seconds) in the same bin.
Because all the trades would be placed in the last microsecond of the time window.
What absolutely needs to happen is a flat transaction tax on any and all transactions
Then we can all listen to the giant whoosing sound as hundreds of thousands of high paying financial industry jobs leave America for London, Singapore, and Shanghai, as yet another American industry is regulated out of existence.
I have a hard time imagining a stupider thing to tax than reallocation of capital. It will still happen, but mostly inside of private equity groups, outside of public view, and out of reach of the taxman. In 1990 PE was worth $30B. Today it is about $4.5 Trillion.
The right way would be to artificially add a random delay of several minutes, with a reproducible generator based on the orders' hashes and some seed known in advance, to avoid foul play.
That would raise risk for market makers, increase transaction costs for small investors, and push even more big investors into off-shore dark pools.
Before proposing silly "solutions", could you please explain what problem are you trying to solve?
I had to use Windows 10 this week. I'd say MS is a long way from redeemed.
You are conflating incompetence with evil. MS is still incompetent, and their software is still terrible, but their evilness has greatly diminished.
Of course, this is not by choice, but because they no longer have the market power to impose their will. For instance, they have realized they have lost the mapping battle. So they are throwing their data open, at little cost to themselves, as a spoiler for Google and Apple, but to the benefit of the public.
You don't see people illegally parking their cars anywhere they wish
Cars? No. Bicycles? Yes.
I live in San JoseI , and I see scooters as mostly a non-problem. I have never seen one on a crowded sidewalk. In fact, I have never even seen a crowded sidewalk. The car to pedestrian ratio is at least 100:1.
If more people use them to get around without driving a car, then they are a good thing. We don't need more nanny-state government.
Try to show some empathy. There are some impoverished areas in east SJ with median housing prices barely reaching $1M. From 237 to Alum Rock, there is not a single Tesla Supercharging Station east of 680. People should not have to live like that. We should all be concerned.
Our government may not care about hunger, housing, or healthcare, but at least they can make sure we all have equal access to rent-a-scooters.
Whatever happened Blackstone's "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
That is theory. In practice, we have always been willing to tolerate false positives in our justice system. When the Innocence Project first started using DNA evidence to reinvestigate old cases, they found about 10% of convicts couldn't possibly have committed the crimes. Many of them were convicted solely on the basis of coerced confessions. 10% is the floor on the false positive rate. The real percentage of innocents in prison is likely even higher.
Stuff as pointless and wasteful as this is usually what we start to see just before a spectacular financial collapse.
Good rule of thumb: Whenever a company pays millions for the "naming rights" to a stadium or sports area, you should short their stock.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
It is unlikely that Einstein ever said that. It was first attributed to him in 1969, 15 years after his death, by someone who had earlier attributed the same quote to someone else.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet just because it is attributed to someone famous." -- Abraham Lincoln.
This article is asinine.
Indeed. I am sitting in front of a 39 inch 4K external monitor, with about 5 square feet of pixels, and TFA is telling me that a 4 inch phone is "peak screen"?
Where's my Holodeck?
and the first few years.
Nope. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the first few days seem to be the most important. C-section babies have more autoimmune disorders later in life, likely because they are not exposed to bacteria and fungi in the birth canal. Breastfeeders have less problems, likely because they ingest beneficial skin flora from their mothers.
Studies have shown that excessive cleanliness increases chances of developing allergies.
Only in the first few months of life. After that, it doesn't matter.
It's a lot harder to fuse 3He then 2H, which would be the first step that we haven't taken.
Indeed. I would like to nominate 3He fusion as "The dumbest idea that is actually taken seriously by anyone."
1. 3He fusion is WAY harder than D-T fusion, and we aren't even close to achieving that.
2. 3He is not "plentiful" on the moon. It is extremely rare, just less so than on earth.
3. There is enough 3He on the moon for 250 years. There is enough Deuterium in the earth's oceans to meet our current needs for several billion years.
In an industry that already spends billions of dollars ...
This isn't about chopping down a bigger tree. It is about sharpening the ax.
as per the example of $500 million for a single SoC, what are you going to do with a measly $100 million ?
Make future SoC designs cost a lot less.
It's about time that such a strategic industry gets revived.
Chip design is dominated by America. There is no need to "revive" it.
Chip manufacturing will still be done in Asia.
Nonsense. Mount a couple of wind turbines on the wings and let them generate power for your SFO to Shanghai flight.
This might actually work.
"Although, putting a fission reactor on a plane is also a bunch of nonsense."
Why?
Because the tickets will be $100,000 each to cover the costs.
Seriously, if you have to ask "Why?" you need to get your clue meter adjusted.
There are plenty of other more cost effective carbon neutral solutions. Running jets on peanut oil would cost 1% of airborne nukes.
H2 has really good energy density per kg (142 Mj/kg, vs 42 for jet fuel) but pretty bad energy density per liter (9 Mj/l vs 37 for jet fuel). So it only makes sense if it can be "burned" at much greater efficiency. A H2 fuel cell is typically about 60% efficiency, vs 36% for the best jets.
Jet fuel can be stored in tanks inside the wings, leaving more space in the fuselage for cargo and passengers. Cryogenic hydrogen needs one big tank inside the fuselage to minimize surface area.
So batteries may make sense for short hops (Boston to NYC, London to Paris), H2 fuel cells for mid-range (Boston to DC, SFO to LAX, London to Berlin), and hydrocarbon jet fuel for long range (London to NYC).
But the really big win would be improving telepresence so there is less need to fly so many aircraft in the first place. Just use the Holodeck for your vacation in Venice.
Roads to remote areas are not made with concrete. They use asphalt, gravel, or dirt.
The absolute best batteries available today are around 1.8 MJ/kg in storage. Compare that with jet fuel which is around 43 MJ/kg. Now cut the range your airplane can fly by a factor of (43/1.8) ~24 and you'll see the issue.
That is not a fair comparison. A battery can convert 95% of its energy to thrust. The best turbofan jets can reach about 36%. So ((43 * 0.36)/(1.8 * 0.95)) = ~ 9.
But that isn't fair either, because when you burn fuel you are no longer carrying the fuel, so the plane gets lighter and uses less fuel per mile further into the journey. The weight of a battery doesn't change. The batteries are deadweight during landing, making landings more dangerous and requiring longer runways.
Batteries need to improve by a roughly a factor of ten to be competitive for long haul aviation. That is unlikely.
A compromise may be to use electrical energy for the takeoff, possibly with a mass driver with the batteries on the ground. This means smaller, quieter, and safer jets (since they don't have to be beefed up for takeoff thrust) as well as shorter runways.
We need to come up with an emission-free ceramic as an alternative to concrete in construction.
Or just reduce the construction. A transportation system based on Hyperloop pods would use WAY less concrete than our current highways.