Click fraud is a violation of Google's ToS. If they are disatisfied with google, they are countless other search engine to use.
The best adjective to describe these people's intentions and methods is "political".
They believe Google is some sort of collective property where everyone has some sort of right of say. This is wrong and evil on so many level it makes me want to puke.
It is like a prenuptial agreement -- I can see how it would be useful / essential for some people, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a situation that requires this.
Quite the opposite, the prenup allows you to *keep* some freedom that you would lose with the default marriage.
Freedom of speech includes the right to waive that freedom in particular cases. NDA's for example.
This is not censorship or a ban on free speech.
This is a questionable practice, it's doomed to fail because anonymity makes it unenforceable, it's counter productive, it's idiotic, but it is not a violation of freedom of speech.
There seems to be this implicit assumption amongst the pure free-market guys that there is no moral or ethical component to economic activities, as if there weren't, at the core of it all human beings who have the ability to suffer as a result of outcomes there.
The case for the free market *is* ethics. Respect for property rights imply an unregulated free market and strongly suggest capitalism.
The idea being that there is that the fully unfettered market is something like a magic clockwork that always produces optimum outcomes if just allowed to be be "free".
I took the position that a free market would have produced losses and inefficiencies due to mispricing of correlations, how is that descriving a "magic clockwork" ?
humans, who will lie, cheat, steal, believe in fairy tales, and engage in many non-logical behaviors produce a system that tends to generate superior outcomes for those in a position to manipulate or at least take advantage of the mechanism, at the expense of much larger groups that do not have this advantage.
Of course. Especially government.
This disaster wasn't caused by having a reserve banking system
There's a strong case for this theory though, it's not an ad hoc theory trying to fit the facts, it's a been here for more than 70 years and fully fits the facts. I suggest you open Hayek or Mises.
Very simply put, when the short term interest rate is artificially prevented from rising, carry trades will take enormous proportions, something they wouldn't be able to do if they had to raise short term capital from a free market in lending.
it was caused by one of the Seven Sins - greed.
Yeah yeah. You just said human are always greedy, so greed's explaining power is 0.
Price signals allow decentralized coordination of economic agents. If you mess with that (set the short term interest rate), you blow up that coordination. The only persons to blame are those who set up the system in this way... and no need to look at the consequences for that, the very way it was set up, through force, violence, fraud is enough to condemn them.
If you don't expect, and then enforce societally this expectation for ethical behavior, it is impossible to produce a market system operated by humans that will avoid busts and bubbles.
All bubbles in history have been related to credit expansion. What does that tell you?
There's nothing advanced or innovative about a gaussian copula. It's a very simple mathematical trick, it doesn't say anything about finance in itself. It's a programming trick to go from a uniform distribution on a cube (easy to generate, run rnd() for each coordinate) to a multivariate gaussian with a specific covariance matrix. The way to do it is cholesky decomposition. This is OLD stuff.
Li's paper is a clever way to measure default correlation using correlation matrixes from asset returns. It's quite clever, and yes it's a pretty good model (more on that later)
This is not journalism, this is a bit of shit where the author decided having an "evil formula" would be cool. Look there's an "equal" sign, how can they be so sure... pffffffffffffffff.
I said it was a good model, yet it's been proven wrong hasn't it? Well, first of all, what has been shown to be wrong is the guesstimate of correlation that was input into the model. G.I.G.O
Plus, if you price a fixed income product and it produces higher than market return, you will borrow short term funds to invest them in it. In a free market that quickly drains the pool of saving and raises short term interest rate. Sure you end up losing money but no catastrophe. In a federal reserve system, well the short term rate stays what the fed says it should be and everyone piles on the arbitrage, creating sky high leveraged position.
Yeah the formula can be misleading, but for a true catastrophe, you need a federal reserve.
Yes, that's a valid point but it's a technicality. They could as well collect falling hair.
They would only need to use force on someone wearing a plastic hat etc. You could argue that people would start wearing such hats if hair were collected but I doubt it.
Rights are not to be balanced, they do not contradict each other or they wouldn't be rights. A right is like a border between right & wrong, you're either within or out.
The software I write is as much a part of me, if not more than my DNA. It's my creation. That doesn't mean I can enforce property rights on this piece of information.
Because it doesn't make sense ? Because a "society" doesn't make decisions. Because there are moral rules inherent to the human nature which do not depend on what people claiming to speak for society think ?
You cannot reject IP, copyright etc and then complain if someone (yes, including the police) picks up one of your hair from the ground and gets your DNA (yes, even without your knowledge).
The economic value is in risk reduction. If we are to have a stable output of electricity, other utilities must compensate for the variability of wind power. In order to do that, they must anticipate as best as they can what the power output of a wind farm will be. If you expect that in the next 20 seconds the wind will blow less, produce more electricity with the hydraulic damn, if it will blow more, produce less, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And if we lay the rails using only manual labor it'll create even more jobs.
There's not a fixed pool of jobs available, demand for labor is infinite and react to wages.
Know what would "create" even more jobs. Having people pedal in the train to power it.
N.B. I'm not making a statement on trains here, I'm making a statement on the stupidity of "job creation" as an argument.
Technology hopefully diminishes the demand for labor, that's the whole freaking point of it.
is 27?
Click fraud is a violation of Google's ToS. If they are disatisfied with google, they are countless other search engine to use.
The best adjective to describe these people's intentions and methods is "political".
They believe Google is some sort of collective property where everyone has some sort of right of say. This is wrong and evil on so many level it makes me want to puke.
Yeah, you might as well call sex "rape", both involve penetration. Consent is critical.
No, we have labor law because bad people held the political gun to the head of employers.
Not employing someone is not "taking advantage of him". Doctors and employers are not your slaves.
I think you're reading to much there. A knife crime is a crime committed with a knife.
"[young people] feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like"
It's a sad and dangerous day when "knife crimes" are seen as bad because they are disrespectful of the law.
(To spell it out, knife crime are bad because they hurt innocent people, not because bureaucrats say they're 'illegal')
Quite the opposite, the prenup allows you to *keep* some freedom that you would lose with the default marriage.
Freedom of speech includes the right to waive that freedom in particular cases. NDA's for example.
This is not censorship or a ban on free speech.
This is a questionable practice, it's doomed to fail because anonymity makes it unenforceable, it's counter productive, it's idiotic, but it is not a violation of freedom of speech.
True, the main error was not so much mis calibration of correlation but to disregard that correlations are dynamic and increase in certain cases.
The case for the free market *is* ethics. Respect for property rights imply an unregulated free market and strongly suggest capitalism.
I took the position that a free market would have produced losses and inefficiencies due to mispricing of correlations, how is that descriving a "magic clockwork" ?
Of course. Especially government.
There's a strong case for this theory though, it's not an ad hoc theory trying to fit the facts, it's a been here for more than 70 years and fully fits the facts. I suggest you open Hayek or Mises.
Very simply put, when the short term interest rate is artificially prevented from rising, carry trades will take enormous proportions, something they wouldn't be able to do if they had to raise short term capital from a free market in lending.
Yeah yeah. You just said human are always greedy, so greed's explaining power is 0.
Blaming greed for a financial crisis is like blaming gravity in a plane crash.
There's nothing advanced or innovative about a gaussian copula. It's a very simple mathematical trick, it doesn't say anything about finance in itself. It's a programming trick to go from a uniform distribution on a cube (easy to generate, run rnd() for each coordinate) to a multivariate gaussian with a specific covariance matrix. The way to do it is cholesky decomposition. This is OLD stuff.
Li's paper is a clever way to measure default correlation using correlation matrixes from asset returns. It's quite clever, and yes it's a pretty good model (more on that later)
This is not journalism, this is a bit of shit where the author decided having an "evil formula" would be cool. Look there's an "equal" sign, how can they be so sure... pffffffffffffffff.
I said it was a good model, yet it's been proven wrong hasn't it? Well, first of all, what has been shown to be wrong is the guesstimate of correlation that was input into the model. G.I.G.O
Plus, if you price a fixed income product and it produces higher than market return, you will borrow short term funds to invest them in it. In a free market that quickly drains the pool of saving and raises short term interest rate. Sure you end up losing money but no catastrophe. In a federal reserve system, well the short term rate stays what the fed says it should be and everyone piles on the arbitrage, creating sky high leveraged position.
Yeah the formula can be misleading, but for a true catastrophe, you need a federal reserve.
The deal only fell apart because... they did not agree on the price. Bummer!
If you know my credit card number, I cannot morally prevent you from knowing it, however, if you use it to steal my money, that's very real theft.
Can you claim ownership on a piece of information and restrict people use of it if they have it at their disposal ?
Same problem.
You cannot morally prevent other people to use and dispose of information they have at their disposal. DNA is information.
Yes, that's a valid point but it's a technicality. They could as well collect falling hair.
They would only need to use force on someone wearing a plastic hat etc. You could argue that people would start wearing such hats if hair were collected but I doubt it.
Rights are not to be balanced, they do not contradict each other or they wouldn't be rights. A right is like a border between right & wrong, you're either within or out.
Begging the question, assuming a right to privacy implies you own your private information.
The software I write is as much a part of me, if not more than my DNA. It's my creation. That doesn't mean I can enforce property rights on this piece of information.
Because it doesn't make sense ? Because a "society" doesn't make decisions. Because there are moral rules inherent to the human nature which do not depend on what people claiming to speak for society think ?
You cannot reject IP, copyright etc and then complain if someone (yes, including the police) picks up one of your hair from the ground and gets your DNA (yes, even without your knowledge).
There is no IP, you don't own your genome.
The economic value is in risk reduction. If we are to have a stable output of electricity, other utilities must compensate for the variability of wind power. In order to do that, they must anticipate as best as they can what the power output of a wind farm will be. If you expect that in the next 20 seconds the wind will blow less, produce more electricity with the hydraulic damn, if it will blow more, produce less, etc.
If price fell, it's good management to cut down production.
At least the Russian government is smart enough to steal money making industries as opposed to the US which bails out money losing businesses.