Why not just hide any information on bids and offers that are not accepted? Basically, if all quote and volume information was made secret, then that information couldn't be gamed. The only information that should be made public is order fulfilment.
The problem is that these bids and offers are public knowledge, when they shouldn't be. People with stocks to sell should say how much stock they want to sell, and the minimum price they are prepared to accept. Folks who want to buy stocks should say what stocks they are willing to buy and what is the maximum they are prepared to pay.The system should then match buyers and seller at the market clearing price, i.e. sell at the highest price that would match buyers and sellers.
This would reduce liquidity, but would get rid of the market manipulation. Yes, it wouldn't get rid of speculators, but might just make HFT not very worthwhile, which would be a good thing in my book.
Because when people spring such things up on you without consulting you, they are not worthy of the courtesy of you bothering to turn up.
If, when invited, the judges had been made aware of the fact that there was a plan to get Assange to address the conference, they would have made an informed decision whether to attend or not, and/or asked for Assange's exact participation so they could avoid any of his talks or lectures.
When people spring this up at a legal conference, they are either rank amateurs who don't understand the legal system (which I find unlikely), or they are trying to turn this conference political.
Or if I being charitable, they wanted to spice up what would ordinarily be a staid conference, and were very naive about asking a fugitive to address judges some of whom may have been party to the cases against said fugitive.
Does the chief justice of Scotland have any outstanding warrants for his arrest in Iran? And is the chief justice planning to address Iranians in Iran?
If both of these are true, then Iranian judges would be well within their right, and perhaps following their obligations, to boycott any conference that the chief justice of Scotland is to present to.
But that is not the case here. Assange is a fugitive from the UK, where he absconded a lawful order for his detention and extradition. He firmly placed himself on the wrong side of the law in the UK, and it is entirely appropriate that judges in the UK do not appear to give legitimacy as someone who can opine on UK laws while simultaneously refusing to be subject to UK laws.
I don't disagree that Intel had illegal business practices. But as you also point out, it was better for Intel to strong arm its "partners" to not deal with AMD in the long run, and they bet on AMD continuing to take them on in a game they could not win.
If AMD, by making its own computers, had been able to get an additional (completely made up) $25 per PC sold, they might have been making a billion or so dollars extra a year, which would have been a big deal for them, and might have given them the revenue to compete with Intel.
It might even have helped them rationalise their product line. At some point,they were manufacturing half a dozen or more processor varieties (Duron (or later Sempron) Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Opteron etc). They were also trying to manufacture for every price point that Intel was manufacturing for, which really allowed Intel to take advantage of their size. Intel had products for every price point that its partners wanted to sell product (Dell, HP, Acer, Gateway, IBM/Lenovo) and AMD had to try and compete with that. it was never going to work out.
Look at what Steve Jobs did at Apple. He got rid of the mentality of making products for every conceivable market segment and concentrated on the segments where he could make most money and that is what saved Apple.
AMD lacked a CEO with such a vision, and kept trying to catch up with Intel. Every decision they have made has meant they fell further behind. Some of the decisions were reasonable e.g. selling their foundry business (they were never going to compete with Intel on foundries) so they could control their losses, but they lacked the big decision that would affect how much money they actually could make.
AMD could never capitalise on their lead for long enough because Intel ultimately had more money, could spend more on R&D and would eventually catch up to and surpass. They were also leaders in process technology - AMD never caught up with them in that department, and were able to squeeze out more performance from what was a worse architecture. Ultimately, the likes of Dell, although they might have, of their own volition, used AMD, were always going to be Intel shops. AMD was always one step away from disaster, and their obsession with getting OEM deals was a huge blind spot.
As I said, AMD were trying to be like Intel, only smaller. That strategy was never likely to work. If AMD had packaged their own kit, they could have developed a strong brand as the maker of reasonably powerful PCs, and at times the outright most powerful PCs. They could have achieved much better brand recognition that way, may have been able to produce bigger profits, and had more money to invest.
AMD has played a losing strategy for as long as I have can remember. It is sad, but I remember my first few PCs were all AMD machines. I bought AMD on principle, and because they were price/performance leaders. They were even outright leaders for a while, but failed to capitalise on that. I think, however, that the whole Sledgehammer/Clawhammer phase has ultimately ruined them. Obviously, those processors were streets ahead of the Intel offerings at the time, but it was always a long term losing strategy, in particular if they were depending on selling CPUs to make money. Their obsession with OEM deals also hurt them.
AMD could have done one of a few things, in my opinion, to reinvent themselves.
- They could have become a whole-hog PC builder, using their own chips and pricing their laptops and desktops accordingly.
- When Android happened, AMD, without as much baggage as Intel, could have produced an Android phone and Android tablets, and gone to market with that, using their chip making expertise to develop offerings that would have been more competitive than Qualcomm, Samsung etc.
AMD was obsessed with being a mini Intel, which was never going to work out for them.
AMD should have taken a page out of Apple's playbook. At best, they might be taken over by a Chinese company, otherwise they are doomed to irrelevance.
Here is an idea. Reddit should just publish their salaries. That way both men and women know what they should expect to be offered.
Other than that, company makes offer, and I tell them I either don't accept it (because I am already earning more than that, or enough to not bother moving), and company makes me a higher offer anyway, or negotiations just happen on the sly, you know, off the record.
But a tax is the people (through their government) setting their price to allow the negative externality. You pay the tax, and you can pollute as much as you want to (until we raise the taxes again).
Of course taxes can be badly designed, but he basic idea is sound.
A tax is a market mechanism, with the people (the government) being the only "seller" of "pollution credits".
Only people who have a very limited (and sometimes deliberately so) understanding of markets deny that taxes are sometimes an essential market correction.
The market solution is called a tax. The collective charge a tax to enable themselves to correct this negative externality - in this case the pollution. That or regulation to ensure that your freedom to travel in a car doesn't interfere with my freedom to not breathe noxious fumes.
They are not being punished by law. If they have freedom to be incredibly offensive online, then surely everyone else has freedom to just let others know what sort of people they are.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech. It just means the state can't prosecute you for it.
The long game is that they are not going to bet their whole existence on their being able to keep ahead of the performance curve.
They will be testing the Atoms and if the Atoms happen to produce a better power and performance package, you can bet that they will flip over to Intel.
One of the advantages they have is that they already differentiate the binaries by device, so it's not a stretch for them to recompile all submitted code right away and have it working on an x86 iPhone if they need it to. Seamlessly too as far as customers are concerned.
Um, no, unless that "kid" uses said sandwich to rob some people who actually believe the sandwich pointed at them is an actual gun! It's quite obvious from the context that we are talking about someone using something that a reasonable person would have no reason to believe wasn't a gun when it was pointed at them.
Maybe there is space in the political spectrum for a political party that:
- Doesn't accept large donations from individuals in return for an inordinate influence (i.e. one greater than their vote share)
- Doesn't accept corporate donations (large or small)
- Has strict limits on the amount of contributions from non-corporates (small enough as to not effectively buy influence in the party)
- Does not endorse or approve or affiliate with any superPACs.
- Does not allow candidates to fund their own campaigns
Such a party would be funded by its members, and each member would have the right to vote for their candidate in closed primaries (you vote if you are a paid up member to reduce gaming by opponents).
The party would also sign a contract with all representatives that allowed their recall in the event that they decided to not abide by party constitution, although such recall would be subject to an appropriately high threshold - e.g. 80% of eligible primary voters demanding a recall (a high enough bar to prevent frivolous recalls).
Threatening someone with a gun-shaped object should carry the same sentence regardless of whether it turned out to be a real gun or not.
Actually shooting someone with a gun should carry an even higher penalty. If you use a fake gun, you obviously don't get to shoot anyone with it, so you will naturally not be charged for shooting anyone, but you don't get to benefit from the fact that you misled your victims as to the ultimate level of violence you were able to commit.
Seeing as carrier groups obviously aren't designed to be covert, if I were designing the protection systems around the carrier group, I would literally bathe the surrounding ocean with sonar and every technology I can think of to ensure that nothing approaches without my knowing it. So I might have subs underneath to detect other subs, and they don't have to be silent. In fact, from a Sonar perspective, I would make them as "loud" as I can to make it clear that you cannot approach without giving away your position.
I suspect a carrier group generally represents the greatest concentration of ammunition and firepower on the face of the planet, which is why it is very difficult to attack it nowadays.
The really really bad idea is designing a system in which a human being who is not really involved in what is going on is asked, at a moment's notice, to take over. If the computer diagnoses a problem big enough, it should stop the car safely and let people out. That's all. No need to ask a person what to do. No need to continue. Computers do what people tell them to do. They don't make completely autonomous decisions.
There is actually a conflict between making the car better at resolving failure, and requiring a human to take over in corner cases. The better the car is at resolving failure, the less likely humans will be required to take over, and the less likely they will know what to do anyway.
There is always follow-me printing, which, at my workplace, uses an access card to allow you to print the documents. I am sure it won't stop a very determined intruder, but it certainly should reduce mishaps like someone forgetting to collect their printouts.
It wouldn't make sense for Sony to have a non-Peter Parker Spiderman in there, and I can also imagine that they will have demanded that they be allowed to cast their own Spiderman.
I am also sure they would have conditions about Spiderman's involvement in the film to make it worthwhile for them.
If not, it would be quite a strange arrangement for Sony.
From what I understand, its never, as long as Sony keeps producing the movies, Marvel doesn't get the rights back.
I can only imagine that Sony will have demanded some additional concessions on the rights they own, e.g. to allow them to take longer between films, in exchange for allowing Marvel to bring Spiderman to the MCU. if I were Sony, I would have asked for that.
As far as I understand, no money changes hands over this deal.
Slashdot Mirror
The metric has you! Hahahahaha!
Why not just hide any information on bids and offers that are not accepted? Basically, if all quote and volume information was made secret, then that information couldn't be gamed. The only information that should be made public is order fulfilment.
The problem is that these bids and offers are public knowledge, when they shouldn't be. People with stocks to sell should say how much stock they want to sell, and the minimum price they are prepared to accept. Folks who want to buy stocks should say what stocks they are willing to buy and what is the maximum they are prepared to pay.The system should then match buyers and seller at the market clearing price, i.e. sell at the highest price that would match buyers and sellers.
This would reduce liquidity, but would get rid of the market manipulation. Yes, it wouldn't get rid of speculators, but might just make HFT not very worthwhile, which would be a good thing in my book.
Because when people spring such things up on you without consulting you, they are not worthy of the courtesy of you bothering to turn up.
If, when invited, the judges had been made aware of the fact that there was a plan to get Assange to address the conference, they would have made an informed decision whether to attend or not, and/or asked for Assange's exact participation so they could avoid any of his talks or lectures.
When people spring this up at a legal conference, they are either rank amateurs who don't understand the legal system (which I find unlikely), or they are trying to turn this conference political.
Or if I being charitable, they wanted to spice up what would ordinarily be a staid conference, and were very naive about asking a fugitive to address judges some of whom may have been party to the cases against said fugitive.
Does the chief justice of Scotland have any outstanding warrants for his arrest in Iran? And is the chief justice planning to address Iranians in Iran?
If both of these are true, then Iranian judges would be well within their right, and perhaps following their obligations, to boycott any conference that the chief justice of Scotland is to present to.
But that is not the case here. Assange is a fugitive from the UK, where he absconded a lawful order for his detention and extradition. He firmly placed himself on the wrong side of the law in the UK, and it is entirely appropriate that judges in the UK do not appear to give legitimacy as someone who can opine on UK laws while simultaneously refusing to be subject to UK laws.
I don't disagree that Intel had illegal business practices. But as you also point out, it was better for Intel to strong arm its "partners" to not deal with AMD in the long run, and they bet on AMD continuing to take them on in a game they could not win.
If AMD, by making its own computers, had been able to get an additional (completely made up) $25 per PC sold, they might have been making a billion or so dollars extra a year, which would have been a big deal for them, and might have given them the revenue to compete with Intel.
It might even have helped them rationalise their product line. At some point ,they were manufacturing half a dozen or more processor varieties (Duron (or later Sempron) Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Opteron etc). They were also trying to manufacture for every price point that Intel was manufacturing for, which really allowed Intel to take advantage of their size. Intel had products for every price point that its partners wanted to sell product (Dell, HP, Acer, Gateway, IBM/Lenovo) and AMD had to try and compete with that. it was never going to work out.
Look at what Steve Jobs did at Apple. He got rid of the mentality of making products for every conceivable market segment and concentrated on the segments where he could make most money and that is what saved Apple.
AMD lacked a CEO with such a vision, and kept trying to catch up with Intel. Every decision they have made has meant they fell further behind. Some of the decisions were reasonable e.g. selling their foundry business (they were never going to compete with Intel on foundries) so they could control their losses, but they lacked the big decision that would affect how much money they actually could make.
AMD could never capitalise on their lead for long enough because Intel ultimately had more money, could spend more on R&D and would eventually catch up to and surpass. They were also leaders in process technology - AMD never caught up with them in that department, and were able to squeeze out more performance from what was a worse architecture. Ultimately, the likes of Dell, although they might have, of their own volition, used AMD, were always going to be Intel shops. AMD was always one step away from disaster, and their obsession with getting OEM deals was a huge blind spot.
As I said, AMD were trying to be like Intel, only smaller. That strategy was never likely to work. If AMD had packaged their own kit, they could have developed a strong brand as the maker of reasonably powerful PCs, and at times the outright most powerful PCs. They could have achieved much better brand recognition that way, may have been able to produce bigger profits, and had more money to invest.
AMD has played a losing strategy for as long as I have can remember. It is sad, but I remember my first few PCs were all AMD machines. I bought AMD on principle, and because they were price/performance leaders. They were even outright leaders for a while, but failed to capitalise on that. I think, however, that the whole Sledgehammer/Clawhammer phase has ultimately ruined them. Obviously, those processors were streets ahead of the Intel offerings at the time, but it was always a long term losing strategy, in particular if they were depending on selling CPUs to make money. Their obsession with OEM deals also hurt them.
AMD could have done one of a few things, in my opinion, to reinvent themselves.
- They could have become a whole-hog PC builder, using their own chips and pricing their laptops and desktops accordingly.
- When Android happened, AMD, without as much baggage as Intel, could have produced an Android phone and Android tablets, and gone to market with that, using their chip making expertise to develop offerings that would have been more competitive than Qualcomm, Samsung etc.
AMD was obsessed with being a mini Intel, which was never going to work out for them.
AMD should have taken a page out of Apple's playbook. At best, they might be taken over by a Chinese company, otherwise they are doomed to irrelevance.
Here is an idea. Reddit should just publish their salaries. That way both men and women know what they should expect to be offered.
Other than that, company makes offer, and I tell them I either don't accept it (because I am already earning more than that, or enough to not bother moving), and company makes me a higher offer anyway, or negotiations just happen on the sly, you know, off the record.
But a tax is the people (through their government) setting their price to allow the negative externality. You pay the tax, and you can pollute as much as you want to (until we raise the taxes again).
Of course taxes can be badly designed, but he basic idea is sound.
A tax is a market mechanism, with the people (the government) being the only "seller" of "pollution credits".
Only people who have a very limited (and sometimes deliberately so) understanding of markets deny that taxes are sometimes an essential market correction.
The market solution is called a tax. The collective charge a tax to enable themselves to correct this negative externality - in this case the pollution. That or regulation to ensure that your freedom to travel in a car doesn't interfere with my freedom to not breathe noxious fumes.
Are we talking of the same Strauss-Kahn who was being tried for other unrelated sex offences?
So post as anonymous!
They are not being punished by law. If they have freedom to be incredibly offensive online, then surely everyone else has freedom to just let others know what sort of people they are.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech. It just means the state can't prosecute you for it.
Huge different between shipping a product with Atom, and having an internal product that can be brought to manufacture quickly.
I think you will find that banks have real liability when they fail to protect customer data. At least here in Europe they would.
The long game is that they are not going to bet their whole existence on their being able to keep ahead of the performance curve.
They will be testing the Atoms and if the Atoms happen to produce a better power and performance package, you can bet that they will flip over to Intel.
One of the advantages they have is that they already differentiate the binaries by device, so it's not a stretch for them to recompile all submitted code right away and have it working on an x86 iPhone if they need it to. Seamlessly too as far as customers are concerned.
Um, no, unless that "kid" uses said sandwich to rob some people who actually believe the sandwich pointed at them is an actual gun! It's quite obvious from the context that we are talking about someone using something that a reasonable person would have no reason to believe wasn't a gun when it was pointed at them.
Maybe there is space in the political spectrum for a political party that:
- Doesn't accept large donations from individuals in return for an inordinate influence (i.e. one greater than their vote share)
- Doesn't accept corporate donations (large or small)
- Has strict limits on the amount of contributions from non-corporates (small enough as to not effectively buy influence in the party)
- Does not endorse or approve or affiliate with any superPACs.
- Does not allow candidates to fund their own campaigns
Such a party would be funded by its members, and each member would have the right to vote for their candidate in closed primaries (you vote if you are a paid up member to reduce gaming by opponents).
The party would also sign a contract with all representatives that allowed their recall in the event that they decided to not abide by party constitution, although such recall would be subject to an appropriately high threshold - e.g. 80% of eligible primary voters demanding a recall (a high enough bar to prevent frivolous recalls).
You are over-thinking it here.
Threatening someone with a gun-shaped object should carry the same sentence regardless of whether it turned out to be a real gun or not.
Actually shooting someone with a gun should carry an even higher penalty. If you use a fake gun, you obviously don't get to shoot anyone with it, so you will naturally not be charged for shooting anyone, but you don't get to benefit from the fact that you misled your victims as to the ultimate level of violence you were able to commit.
The judge should have kept him in prison for contempt of court.
If you will not respect the laws of the land, then you should be locked up. Anything else is a recipe for lawlessness.
Seeing as carrier groups obviously aren't designed to be covert, if I were designing the protection systems around the carrier group, I would literally bathe the surrounding ocean with sonar and every technology I can think of to ensure that nothing approaches without my knowing it. So I might have subs underneath to detect other subs, and they don't have to be silent. In fact, from a Sonar perspective, I would make them as "loud" as I can to make it clear that you cannot approach without giving away your position.
I suspect a carrier group generally represents the greatest concentration of ammunition and firepower on the face of the planet, which is why it is very difficult to attack it nowadays.
The really really bad idea is designing a system in which a human being who is not really involved in what is going on is asked, at a moment's notice, to take over. If the computer diagnoses a problem big enough, it should stop the car safely and let people out. That's all. No need to ask a person what to do. No need to continue. Computers do what people tell them to do. They don't make completely autonomous decisions.
There is actually a conflict between making the car better at resolving failure, and requiring a human to take over in corner cases. The better the car is at resolving failure, the less likely humans will be required to take over, and the less likely they will know what to do anyway.
There is always follow-me printing, which, at my workplace, uses an access card to allow you to print the documents. I am sure it won't stop a very determined intruder, but it certainly should reduce mishaps like someone forgetting to collect their printouts.
It wouldn't make sense for Sony to have a non-Peter Parker Spiderman in there, and I can also imagine that they will have demanded that they be allowed to cast their own Spiderman.
I am also sure they would have conditions about Spiderman's involvement in the film to make it worthwhile for them.
If not, it would be quite a strange arrangement for Sony.
From what I understand, its never, as long as Sony keeps producing the movies, Marvel doesn't get the rights back.
I can only imagine that Sony will have demanded some additional concessions on the rights they own, e.g. to allow them to take longer between films, in exchange for allowing Marvel to bring Spiderman to the MCU. if I were Sony, I would have asked for that.
As far as I understand, no money changes hands over this deal.