Also, 'holding' a stock for a millisecond, because you gamed the system using servers, locations, and algorithms not available to the market as whole, is done for one reason.
To see the orders the 'real' investors make, buy a millisecond before they can, and then sell it to the original actual investors for a fraction of a cent more than they would have bought it anyway from a true market.
It does not help with pricing, it does not benefit the market itself.
It is no different than theft. If you make a huge mental stretch you could maybe compare it to ticket scalping.... Something also almost universally illegal.
Except that scalpers actually do help set a more correct price based on the market. Seeing a game or concert is worth more to some people than to others. Scalpers make sure they people who are willing to pay the most to see the game or concert are the people who actually get to see it. (The morality of the fact that "willing to pay the most" sometimes means "has the most money" rather than "wants to see it the most" is a separate question.)
I think the scalpers help society far more than the millisecond traders do.
1. It's not a thought crime. Ravi actually did something, he didn't just think about it. He actually invaded another man's privacy and he actually publicly humiliated that man because of what he saw during said invasion. Further, he attempted to get other individuals to lie to police during the investigation. Not thought crimes.
2. Ravi was not charged with any category of homicide. He was charged with bias intimidation and invasion of privacy as well as witness tampering. The suicide brought attention to the crimes, yes, but he was not charged with homicide.
3. "Gay" is not a "special protected class. Anyone of any sexual orientation is a "special protected class" if they are being targeted for harm because of their sexual orientation, period.
It's weird that you find someone being punished for invading another person's privacy, attempting to intimidate and harass that person due to what was seen during that invasion, and then to later attempt to thwart investigation into the crimes - unless, are you saying you think it would be perfectly all right for someone to do those things to you and your loved ones? A strange POV for slashdot, but then again, you do say you have thoughts outside the norm so maybe you're special.
I don't object to the guy being punished, I object to the cruel and unusual punishment of 10 years in prison for some minor offenses. You dispute each of the points for which I say Ravi is being punished, but if it weren't for his thoughts, the decision of Clementi to murder himself, and the fact the Clementi was gay, would Ravi be facing 10 years? He would be facing maybe a year. So he's facing 9 of those years for thought crime, another person's decision, and for the social status of the victim.
I would say the guy violated the husband's privacy first (and whole lot more). If we can't punish that, how can we punish the husband?
The housemate thing is a different matter since they're not married. However 10 years is still overdoing it. A large fine, community service, maybe even a month in jail - those would be appropriate punishments. 10 years is an example of the government committing far worse bullying than anything Ravi was accused of.
I can see why it is on the news. But a Tech Site like Slashdot?
Even nerds have to worry about living in police state where you can be thrown in jail for ten years for
1. Thought crimes
2. Other people's actions (when they decide on their own to commit suicide)
3. Committing an offense that would be normally be consider not too serious but becomes serious when committed against special protected classes (I believe there are precedents for this in castes laws in India and in Celtic laws where punishments were based on the social status of the victim and the criminal).
Given that nerds often have thoughts outside the norm, often have trouble anticipating the behavior of more normal people, and often find ourselves at the bottom of social status, such a system is very troubling for us.
I think you're attitude is the truly dangerous one. With or without government support, running a business is a basic freedom. The government benefits you mention such as roads, education, and methods of exchange would exist with or without the government. It might good to have the government to provide them, but providing those benefits does not give the government the right to take away a person's most basic right to provide sustenance to himself and his family on his own.
The only thing you mention that requires the government is the maintenance of law and order - and that only because by definition the government is what provides law and order. Government is, by definition, the wielder of force. Government operates by violence - that is the role of government - to use violence so that the rest of society doesn't have to or is not allowed to.
When the government becomes the regulator of relations between people, whether it be husband and wife, parent and child, or employer and employee, then the threat of violence is being introduced. In a free society that would be limited to preventing the use of violence between those parties.
It sounds like you believe a business owners decisions about hiring and firing should be guided by threat of violence. That's the opposite of freedom.
A computer-implemented method for providing an annotation of a digital work, comprising:
--under control of instructions that are executed by one or more computing devices:
--receiving multiple annotations from different authors for particular content in a digital work;
--storing the annotations in association with the digital work;
--providing a list of abbreviated versions of the annotations to a user desiring to access one or more of the annotations, wherein the list presents the annotations in an order determined by reference to a criterion;
--receiving an authorization credential from a user desiring to access one or more of the annotations; and if the authorization credential is valid,
--providing a full version of one or more of the annotations of the digital work to the user in context with regard to the digital work.
Time for me to apply for my newest patent:
A computer-implemented method for providing an annotation of a digital work or set of multiple digital works, comprising:
--under control of instructions that are executed by one or more computing devices:
--receiving multiple annotations from different authors for particular content in a digital work or set of multiple digital works;
--storing the annotations in association with the digital work or set of multiple digital works;
--providing a list of abbreviated versions of the annotations to a user desiring to access one or more of the annotations, wherein the list presents the annotations in an order determined by reference to a criterion;
--receiving an authorization credential from a user desiring to access one or more of the annotations; and if the authorization credential is valid,
--providing a full version of one or more of the annotations of the digital work or set of multiple digital works to the user in context with regard to the digital work or set of multiple digital works.
I nearly got killed in Hong Kong because of that driving on the left business, but it wasn't what you would think.
I went to Hong Kong for just 3 days 2 nights with no plans to do any driving. As such I didn't think at all about the which side of the street you drive on in Hong Kong.
But the very first day I was there, I planning to cross an intersection so I checked my left and started walking. As a friend yanked me back onto the sidewalk a car came speeding around the corner from the right. Dude saved my life.
When I read these studies, I often wonder how many variations were tried. Usually some mention is made of "even hands free", but I suppose that means a set of earphones. The first time I ever tried to use a cell phone while driving, I immediately found that he voice dancing around my head as I moved my head around (looking various ways for turning, lane changing) was highly disorienting. I'm used to the person I'm talking to staying in one place. If I hold the phone still in front of my mouth while I talk, I don't have that problem.
Have they tested policemen and truckers using CB radios to see how distracted they are? What about a "hands free" set up where the voice of the person you're talking to comes through the radio speakers?
One thing I think is distracting that doesn't get much talk is the fact that the person you're talking to doesn't see the same thing you do. This means that when something drastic happens and you have to cut off the conversation for a few seconds, the person on the other end of the phone doesn't know why - so your tendency to be polite will cut into your tendency focus on the road when the need arises. You don't have this problem with someone the car with you- they saw the same thing you did and how you had to react. This might acount for a fraction of a second reduced reaction time. Odd as it sounds, perhaps a video and audio link would be safer than a audio-only link. Another advantage to a video link is that part of your brain wouldn't be occupied trying to imagine the other person.
A better question is, why does anybody think Santorum or Obama, let alone a 3rd world dictator, is any smarter than anybody else?
Because you don't become leader of your country unless you are very intelligent. There are, of course different kinds of intelligence, and there are other traits (narcissm, ruthlessness) that can increase the odds of someone becoming leader. But intelligence is a core requirement. If you're not intelligent, you won't get the support of those around you and you'll be bumped out by either a clear enemy or a treacherous "friend". (One of the most important kinds of intelligence for a national leader is the ability to judge the motives, capabilities, and character of people).
Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Castro, Putin, Hussein - all were well above average intelligence.
They also dont seem to teach the constitution either. Santorum constantly says "gods law" supersedes the US law.Is that rote incompetence or rote treason?
I think you have the capitalization wrong. Santorum isn't referring to multiple gods.
Santorum is being neither incompetent nor treasonous - he is re-stating the founding principle of this country, a belief that made it possible for men to reject their king and embrace freedom.
It was treason for England at the time, but for America it is not treason - it is loyalty to our purpose.
That doesn't sound terribly effective. I remember trying a phone that similarly delays your speech at one of those hands-on children's museums. The first time you try it it does make you stop. But you quickly realize that if you ignore your own voice you can continue talking. You need to take an extra second before you speak (to plan out or memorize your sentence), but then you just say the whole thing instead of relying on audible feedback.
At the same time, what this evil bastard did needs punishing.
Yes, but unfortunately he is already dead. What? You meant the guy who twittered? He broke few laws and was rude, but I don't see how you can call him 'evil'. The guy who killed himself, on the other hand, was a selfish bastard who chose to murder his parents' child, kill his best friend's best friend, and give permanent emotional scars to his siblings and to who knows who else. He is the one responsible for his own death and it is unfair to pin the blame on someone else.
Right. Motivation can have an emotion component beyond thinking. So it wasn't purely a thought crime nor purely an emotion crime, but a combination of both. Does that make you feel better?
Not really. A hate crime isn't determined by race, it's determined by what you're thinking. It's easier to remember if you if you say use the more general term "thought crime".
What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?
1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage.
Uh, yes, his scenario seems to imply that.
But let's take it a bit further. There's this total bitch who completely pisses me off. I discover she's having an affair and I surreptitiously film her having sex. I figure I'll send it to the husband just to fuck up her life. She discovers this and commits suicide.
[...] you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"
Like, here, this is an example. There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. [...] "Oh, sorry Father. Anyways, Father. Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line!"
"Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account. Sit down, Woozie."
I mean, I can come up with a bunch of scenarios--and they don't have to be as odd as George Carlin's--and ask "Would that then be a hate crime then?" So the system is working--we're going to let a jury decide the parameters of a hate crime because a law cannot account for all possible occurrences.
To me, though, there's a difference between "I hate someone because they're gay" and "I hate someone who happens to be gay." One is a hate crime and one is not.
Congratulations, you are the seventh person to issue that correction. As (currently) the latest person to catch on and complain, might I ask you: do you think there will be an eighth? How about a ninth?
I saw the others, but thought they were unnecessarily harsh (failing to give credit for the fact that "non-polynomial" close enough for engineering), incorrect in their explanation, unclear in their explanation, or some combination of those.
I can actually take fault with yours: saying "are all the NP problems also P" is bad semantics because P is a subset of NP; the TSP is actually NP-hard, not NP-complete, unless you rephrase it as a question with a boolean answer (e.g. "Is there a circuit shorter than length x?");
I did phrase it as a question. The full quote was, "That is, are all the NP problems also P?" See the question mark? I'm asking if NP and P are the same, or whether P is a proper subset of NP. (We know know that the other options, NP a proper subset of P and NP and P not intersecting, aren't right).
and it is widely believed that we will never find a proof that P = NP, and if we do it will probably be so wildly complex and unwieldy that there will be no point, or alternatively even if we don't the whole matter will be rendered unnecessary by quantum computing.
I disagree with you on all those points. It will take a long time to find a proof one way or the other, but I think the question is pretty much still up in the air whether the prove will prove or disprove P=NP, with not many people willing to bet the house either way. As for there being "no point", the initial proof most likely will be extremely unwieldy, but over time it will be simplified and even though it may remain fairly complex there will still be some important practical problems that it solves. And I find it hard to believe quantum computing will remove computational complexity (but I have to admit I know very little about quantum computing).
Ok. I guess I was being silly. I thought you had borrowed a word that had come to be associated with "holocaust deniers" and used it to smear people who disagreed with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, 'holding' a stock for a millisecond, because you gamed the system using servers, locations, and algorithms not available to the market as whole, is done for one reason.
To see the orders the 'real' investors make, buy a millisecond before they can, and then sell it to the original actual investors for a fraction of a cent more than they would have bought it anyway from a true market.
It does not help with pricing, it does not benefit the market itself.
It is no different than theft. If you make a huge mental stretch you could maybe compare it to ticket scalping.... Something also almost universally illegal.
Except that scalpers actually do help set a more correct price based on the market. Seeing a game or concert is worth more to some people than to others. Scalpers make sure they people who are willing to pay the most to see the game or concert are the people who actually get to see it. (The morality of the fact that "willing to pay the most" sometimes means "has the most money" rather than "wants to see it the most" is a separate question.)
I think the scalpers help society far more than the millisecond traders do.
You were lucky to have a glacier.
We had to wait for continental drift.
The last thing the Republican would want to do is bring in a few million more socialist voters who have difficulty with the concept of freedomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada#Human_Rights_Commissions.
1. It's not a thought crime. Ravi actually did something, he didn't just think about it. He actually invaded another man's privacy and he actually publicly humiliated that man because of what he saw during said invasion. Further, he attempted to get other individuals to lie to police during the investigation. Not thought crimes.
2. Ravi was not charged with any category of homicide. He was charged with bias intimidation and invasion of privacy as well as witness tampering. The suicide brought attention to the crimes, yes, but he was not charged with homicide.
3. "Gay" is not a "special protected class. Anyone of any sexual orientation is a "special protected class" if they are being targeted for harm because of their sexual orientation, period.
It's weird that you find someone being punished for invading another person's privacy, attempting to intimidate and harass that person due to what was seen during that invasion, and then to later attempt to thwart investigation into the crimes - unless, are you saying you think it would be perfectly all right for someone to do those things to you and your loved ones? A strange POV for slashdot, but then again, you do say you have thoughts outside the norm so maybe you're special.
I don't object to the guy being punished, I object to the cruel and unusual punishment of 10 years in prison for some minor offenses. You dispute each of the points for which I say Ravi is being punished, but if it weren't for his thoughts, the decision of Clementi to murder himself, and the fact the Clementi was gay, would Ravi be facing 10 years? He would be facing maybe a year. So he's facing 9 of those years for thought crime, another person's decision, and for the social status of the victim.
Bias against adultery? An implied threat to anyone else who might cheat on the wife?
I would say the guy violated the husband's privacy first (and whole lot more). If we can't punish that, how can we punish the husband?
The housemate thing is a different matter since they're not married. However 10 years is still overdoing it. A large fine, community service, maybe even a month in jail - those would be appropriate punishments. 10 years is an example of the government committing far worse bullying than anything Ravi was accused of.
I can see why it is on the news. But a Tech Site like Slashdot?
Even nerds have to worry about living in police state where you can be thrown in jail for ten years for
1. Thought crimes
2. Other people's actions (when they decide on their own to commit suicide)
3. Committing an offense that would be normally be consider not too serious but becomes serious when committed against special protected classes (I believe there are precedents for this in castes laws in India and in Celtic laws where punishments were based on the social status of the victim and the criminal).
Given that nerds often have thoughts outside the norm, often have trouble anticipating the behavior of more normal people, and often find ourselves at the bottom of social status, such a system is very troubling for us.
I think you're attitude is the truly dangerous one. With or without government support, running a business is a basic freedom. The government benefits you mention such as roads, education, and methods of exchange would exist with or without the government. It might good to have the government to provide them, but providing those benefits does not give the government the right to take away a person's most basic right to provide sustenance to himself and his family on his own.
The only thing you mention that requires the government is the maintenance of law and order - and that only because by definition the government is what provides law and order. Government is, by definition, the wielder of force. Government operates by violence - that is the role of government - to use violence so that the rest of society doesn't have to or is not allowed to.
When the government becomes the regulator of relations between people, whether it be husband and wife, parent and child, or employer and employee, then the threat of violence is being introduced. In a free society that would be limited to preventing the use of violence between those parties.
It sounds like you believe a business owners decisions about hiring and firing should be guided by threat of violence. That's the opposite of freedom.
Did the patent say anything about "selling" the annotations? My friend I believe you have the makings of another patent!
Time for me to apply for my newest patent:
A computer-implemented method for providing an annotation of a digital work or set of multiple digital works, comprising:
--under control of instructions that are executed by one or more computing devices:
--receiving multiple annotations from different authors for particular content in a digital work or set of multiple digital works;
--storing the annotations in association with the digital work or set of multiple digital works;
--providing a list of abbreviated versions of the annotations to a user desiring to access one or more of the annotations, wherein the list presents the annotations in an order determined by reference to a criterion;
--receiving an authorization credential from a user desiring to access one or more of the annotations; and if the authorization credential is valid,
--providing a full version of one or more of the annotations of the digital work or set of multiple digital works to the user in context with regard to the digital work or set of multiple digital works.
I nearly got killed in Hong Kong because of that driving on the left business, but it wasn't what you would think.
I went to Hong Kong for just 3 days 2 nights with no plans to do any driving. As such I didn't think at all about the which side of the street you drive on in Hong Kong.
But the very first day I was there, I planning to cross an intersection so I checked my left and started walking. As a friend yanked me back onto the sidewalk a car came speeding around the corner from the right. Dude saved my life.
When I read these studies, I often wonder how many variations were tried. Usually some mention is made of "even hands free", but I suppose that means a set of earphones. The first time I ever tried to use a cell phone while driving, I immediately found that he voice dancing around my head as I moved my head around (looking various ways for turning, lane changing) was highly disorienting. I'm used to the person I'm talking to staying in one place. If I hold the phone still in front of my mouth while I talk, I don't have that problem.
Have they tested policemen and truckers using CB radios to see how distracted they are? What about a "hands free" set up where the voice of the person you're talking to comes through the radio speakers?
One thing I think is distracting that doesn't get much talk is the fact that the person you're talking to doesn't see the same thing you do. This means that when something drastic happens and you have to cut off the conversation for a few seconds, the person on the other end of the phone doesn't know why - so your tendency to be polite will cut into your tendency focus on the road when the need arises. You don't have this problem with someone the car with you- they saw the same thing you did and how you had to react. This might acount for a fraction of a second reduced reaction time. Odd as it sounds, perhaps a video and audio link would be safer than a audio-only link. Another advantage to a video link is that part of your brain wouldn't be occupied trying to imagine the other person.
Or spending increases without loss of freedom.
Someone please mod parent UP!
Because you don't become leader of your country unless you are very intelligent. There are, of course different kinds of intelligence, and there are other traits (narcissm, ruthlessness) that can increase the odds of someone becoming leader. But intelligence is a core requirement. If you're not intelligent, you won't get the support of those around you and you'll be bumped out by either a clear enemy or a treacherous "friend". (One of the most important kinds of intelligence for a national leader is the ability to judge the motives, capabilities, and character of people).
Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Castro, Putin, Hussein - all were well above average intelligence.
I think you have the capitalization wrong. Santorum isn't referring to multiple gods.
Santorum is being neither incompetent nor treasonous - he is re-stating the founding principle of this country, a belief that made it possible for men to reject their king and embrace freedom.
It was treason for England at the time, but for America it is not treason - it is loyalty to our purpose.
That doesn't sound terribly effective. I remember trying a phone that similarly delays your speech at one of those hands-on children's museums. The first time you try it it does make you stop. But you quickly realize that if you ignore your own voice you can continue talking. You need to take an extra second before you speak (to plan out or memorize your sentence), but then you just say the whole thing instead of relying on audible feedback.
Polar bears in Antarctica?
Immigration laws are notoriously weak in Antarctica .
At the same time, what this evil bastard did needs punishing.
Yes, but unfortunately he is already dead. What? You meant the guy who twittered? He broke few laws and was rude, but I don't see how you can call him 'evil'. The guy who killed himself, on the other hand, was a selfish bastard who chose to murder his parents' child, kill his best friend's best friend, and give permanent emotional scars to his siblings and to who knows who else. He is the one responsible for his own death and it is unfair to pin the blame on someone else.
Right. Motivation can have an emotion component beyond thinking. So it wasn't purely a thought crime nor purely an emotion crime, but a combination of both. Does that make you feel better?
Not really. A hate crime isn't determined by race, it's determined by what you're thinking. It's easier to remember if you if you say use the more general term "thought crime".
What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?
1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage.
Uh, yes, his scenario seems to imply that.
But let's take it a bit further. There's this total bitch who completely pisses me off. I discover she's having an affair and I surreptitiously film her having sex. I figure I'll send it to the husband just to fuck up her life. She discovers this and commits suicide.
Is that there then a hate crime?
Random aside: While writing this, I was suddenly struck by an old George Carlin bit:
[...] you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"
Like, here, this is an example. There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. [...] "Oh, sorry Father. Anyways, Father. Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line!"
"Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account. Sit down, Woozie."
I mean, I can come up with a bunch of scenarios--and they don't have to be as odd as George Carlin's--and ask "Would that then be a hate crime then?" So the system is working--we're going to let a jury decide the parameters of a hate crime because a law cannot account for all possible occurrences.
To me, though, there's a difference between "I hate someone because they're gay" and "I hate someone who happens to be gay." One is a hate crime and one is not.
Actually, both are thought crimes.
Congratulations, you are the seventh person to issue that correction. As (currently) the latest person to catch on and complain, might I ask you: do you think there will be an eighth? How about a ninth?
I saw the others, but thought they were unnecessarily harsh (failing to give credit for the fact that "non-polynomial" close enough for engineering), incorrect in their explanation, unclear in their explanation, or some combination of those.
I can actually take fault with yours: saying "are all the NP problems also P" is bad semantics because P is a subset of NP; the TSP is actually NP-hard, not NP-complete, unless you rephrase it as a question with a boolean answer (e.g. "Is there a circuit shorter than length x?");
I did phrase it as a question. The full quote was, "That is, are all the NP problems also P?" See the question mark? I'm asking if NP and P are the same, or whether P is a proper subset of NP. (We know know that the other options, NP a proper subset of P and NP and P not intersecting, aren't right).
and it is widely believed that we will never find a proof that P = NP, and if we do it will probably be so wildly complex and unwieldy that there will be no point, or alternatively even if we don't the whole matter will be rendered unnecessary by quantum computing.
I disagree with you on all those points. It will take a long time to find a proof one way or the other, but I think the question is pretty much still up in the air whether the prove will prove or disprove P=NP, with not many people willing to bet the house either way. As for there being "no point", the initial proof most likely will be extremely unwieldy, but over time it will be simplified and even though it may remain fairly complex there will still be some important practical problems that it solves. And I find it hard to believe quantum computing will remove computational complexity (but I have to admit I know very little about quantum computing).
Ok. I guess I was being silly. I thought you had borrowed a word that had come to be associated with "holocaust deniers" and used it to smear people who disagreed with you.
It's not a religion, well, except for the deniers.
"Deniers"? Is that your religion's term for heathens?