The competitors' algorithms have to take these into account, while your algorithm can be designed to ignore them.
So what if everyone does this? Seems to me the net effect would be to introduce a delay into all electronic trading?
The time advantage is relative, so even if everyone is already delayed a bit, it would be to your benefit to try to delay your competitor even more. Thus the incentives would create longer and longer delays over time...which is exactly what most people want to happen to automated trading.
Stocks are a massive game of hot potato. Whoever is holding the stock with the game is over gets burned.
When is the game over? Do you mean when a company declares bankruptcy? (the game is over for that stock) Or when the market falls? (it goes up and down constantly) Or is the entire stock market going to crash and burn? (end of American society as we know it)
I agree that the goal of the stock market is not to maintain wealth--if you just want to maintain, you can't beat inflation-protected Treasuries. The stock market is a way to grow wealth, and the winning strategy is not a secret: dollar cost averaging and low-load index funds. It's not a get-rich-quick scheme, but it will grow wealth if given enough time.
If you're wheeling and dealing individual stocks, yeah, it's more like gambling. But that is only one way to play the stock market.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that limits on money are limits on speech, since it takes money to speak publicly.
Imagine a law that said that you are allowed to write whatever you want on the Internet, as long as you don't spend any money on an Internet connection or Web hosting. Would you consider that a limit on your speech? I would.
Brake pads alone are a market larger than $5 billion, and counterfeiting is rampant there. What is the market size of replacement razor blades? Golf clubs? Batteries?
The bulk of the cost of counterfeit products is not when someone buys a $5 pair of Fauxkleys on the street. It is when someone buys a set of Toyota brakepads for full OEM price, but they weren't made by Toyota. Neither the mechanic nor the customer is aware that they are buying counterfeit goods, even when the pads wear out twice as fast as they should.
a) So don't issue any credit. You don't need to accept cash for sale of goods or services, only for debt. If you're selling, you can require people to pay in pure gold if you want. b) Or do issue credit, but charge a sufficient interest rate to make money. Most mortgages last 30 years, and banks make money on them even taking inflation into account, because they charge a high enough interest rate.
U.S. military installations in Norway: 9 Norwegian military installation in the U.S.: 0
One reason the U.S. does not spend as much on social welfare is that we spend a lot more on our military. This benefits the social welfare states of Western Europe, including Norway.
I'd make an analogy here, except there's nothing in society we let people buy and sell that fast, certainly not giant entities....I'd like to see someone try to buy a house and resell it ten milliseconds later.
And I'd like to see the law that sets a limit on how fast we can buy and sell things--even houses.
It's usually not practically possible to buy and sell houses so quickly, because of the need for clear title, etc. But as far as I know there is no law or regulation that actually sets out time limits.
The problem with setting long minimum ownership times is that it creates low liquidity. I'm not saying we need millisecond transactions to make markets, but a month would be way too long.
Let's say you're right. Now Google has an index for cnn.com, and an index for spamdomain.com. Presumably the timestamps on the cnn.com pages are a bit earlier since it takes time for spamdomain.com to scrape and republish the content, and then for Google to index the new content on spamdomain.com.
I'm no computer scientist but it seems that this is the sort of data mirroring that should be pretty easy to spot algorithmically. If two domains share >80% of the exact same content, de-emphasize the one with later timestamps.
The provocative theory is that Google doesn't care which site ranks first, as long as its ads are being served on both. Or worse, that Google allows the crap to float to the top if it is carrying Google ads, and cnn.com is not.
Is the theory right? Who knows besides Google? Perhaps it is not so easy for the algorithm to distinguish what to our minds is obvious spamming. And one of the things that Google is up-front about is that if they can't do it algorithmically, they're not interested in it.
I switched mine to tap-to-click mode, in part because I was annoyed at the differing click pressures (as you note) and in part because the click is so loud. (and I am sometimes using my laptop next my sleeping wife)
It took a little getting used to, but I find that it works very well. I never could stand tap to click on my PC laptops, but I like it a lot on my MacBook Pro. I ended up getting a used Fingerworks trackpad for my PC, and now I'll probably pick up a "Magic" trackpad for my iMac at work. So I'm fully sold on tap to click.:-)
Touch products are great for RSI. That is why Fingerworks trackpads and keyboards were so popular with people who were having wrist problems.
They discard 5-finger inputs so you can relax--I mean completely relax--your hand directly on the touchpad when you are not moving the mouse...even between movements. It is a very more natural relaxed position--all fingers curled naturally downward...just like resting your hand on a table.
Movements on a touchpad take no force since you are only moving your fingers. Even light mice require more effort (tension) in your fingers to pinch and move. "Clicks" take only the most subtle of finger movements. Drags take no tension to hold down the button, since "drag" is a persistent state you invoke with a discrete gesture.
There are also fewer reasons to move the mouse, since so much can be done with gestures. I'll have to see how many the "Magic Trackpad" support, but with my Fingerworks pad on my PC, I can open and close windows, open and close documents, print, find, drag, scroll, switch windows, etc via gestures.
I was having a lot of problems with my right wrist, which is bad since I like to kayak for fun. After doing some research online I figured I would give a Fingerworks trackpad a try, and it has been a huge improvement for me. The above descriptions are my own thoughts about why it has been such a big help.
I'm excited for the Magic Trackpad (despite its stupid name) because my Fingerworks pad cost $250 used on eBay, and it's hooked up to my PC. I was looking for one for my Mac, and $69 sounds a lot better.
If ISPs want the rights inherent in operating as private networks, then they should bear the responsibilities for the content they privately decide to carry. For example, if an ISP is found to be transmitting child pornography, then as a private network they could be subject to prosecution for distributing it.
If they want to be exempted from such liability like other common carriers, then they should be expected to meet the responsibilities of other common carriers: publish tariffs and treat all cargo within each tariff equally.
Rights and responsibilities--in a civilized society they go together.
A lot of people do shoot pictures of things that don't move. I do know how to operate a view camera, and you'll doubtlessly be shocked to learn that I first tried it out as a rank amateur (and long before KenRockwell.com hit the Webs).
It sounds like you're the type of person he's talking about in the quote I put in my post. You seem very hung up on your own conception of what constitutes photography, and you're upset when someone talks about it in a different way.
As I said before, the point of the article is to encourage people to think of serious photography more broadly than just DSLRs. That message doesn't seem to resonate with you, but there's no reason to get angry about it. I don't use a view camera these days; I use a DSLR mostly, or a waterproof point and shoot. But I recognize their limitations in the greater scope of photography--I know I'm trading off lower image quality for greater convenience. And if you read other articles on the site, you'll see that Ken does too. The post that first mentioned him linked to a humorous article about it:
Looks to me like Tab Candy is basically a windowing manager built as a Firefox extension. This means it is a windowing manager written in HTML, CSS, and Javascript. That's not exactly a high-performance stack, especially given Firefox's penchant to leak memory over time.
Why not let the OS manage your windows? It's much better equipped to do so. On OS X I can open every link in a new window, and use Expose to sort them out. Or I can be smart about grouping tabs per window....work tabs in one window, search in another, etc. And Firefox lets me drag tabs on and off windows so I can rearrange them pretty easily.
I've read that article and its revisions many times. It's always struck me as very reasonable, with quotes like:
Neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application the debate goes away. The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else's needs mirror their own.
So why the debate? I suspect the debate is among amateurs who've really only shot 35mm since it's been the only popular amateur film format for the past 25 years. Pros never say "film," they say a format like "120," "4x5," "6x17," "8x20" or "35" since "film" could mean so many things. Amateurs say "film" since they only use one format and presume 35mm. Therein lies the potential for debate when people don't first define their terminology. Today's digital SLRs replace 35mm, no big deal. Most people will get far better prints from a 6MP DSLR like the D70 than they will paying someone else to print their 35mm film.
The point of the article is to educate people about film photography vs. digital photography. It's not a 35mm format shootout. One of his constantly-recurring themes is that there is more to photography than 35mm. A 4x5 view camera that shoots film will cost less than a top-end DSLR and will capture much higher resolution. On the other hand, you can only use it for certain types of pictures. He addresses these and other tradeoffs. Be sure to read the thing from top to bottom--don't just skip to the pictures and read the captions.
Kodachrome was the first popular color slide film. As such it defined how color slides "should" look to a generation of photographers.
Kodachrome has extremely fine grain and does not have the dye clouds that early E6 slide film did, because the color is added during processing. Thus it was the best for big enlargements.
Kodachrome had the best color saturation of slide films for a long time, especially if it was slightly underexposed. National Geographic nature photographers typically shot Kodachrome 64 at 50 ASA for instance.
Kodachrome had deep, rich blacks because it responded to light like a black-and-white film. In addition, because it responded similar to black and white, you could use an approximation of the Zone System with it.
Kodachrome eventually lost all of these advantages as E6 films got better and better. For nature photography, it was firmly dethroned by Fuji Velvia 50.
E6 films are a lot easier to process, thus you could take it a local lab and get it back in a few hours on a rush job.
Companies like Fuji and Kodak improved the dye cloud size and character until it matched or beat Kodachrome 64. Velvia 50 is just as good for enlargements as Kodachrome 64, if not better.
Companies also developed very fine control of color and blackness characteristics of E6 films. You could buy Velvia for deep shadows and heavy saturation--great for nature photography, but terrible for skin tones. Other films optimized for portraits, which meant less heavy saturation and shadows. This also helped photographers get past the "normalcy" of the Kodachrome look.
Galen Rowell wrote quite a bit about his move from Kodachrome to Velvia in one of his books...I think it was "Mountain Light."
Seems to me that autofill creates a database of personal information that is accessible by the Internet and dependent on a browser's security model. Does any kind of software have a worse record for security than Web browsers? (Maybe e-mail clients?)
The first thing I do in any browser is turn off autofill for all fields. Anything I need to type into a form is either already in my head or I can look it up easily (credit card number for instance). Either way, it's personal info that IMO does not need to be attached permanently to the Internet.
True if you want a written response. But if you want to make them think twice about their vote, call. Nothing is more miserable for a Congressional office than a flood of phone calls. This is especially true for House members, who don't have big staffs. Everyone has to drop what they're doing to take angry phone calls all day.
Letters with stamps don't make the same impact on the staff, and thanks to the mandatory radiation treatment (thanks anthrax), they take forever to get there.
Just for context: 20 years ago was 1990. The Web was not even invented yet; very few people had Internet access at home.
When home Internet use started growing in the mid and late 1990s, it was via modems and telephone lines. Home telephony was (and is) a common carrier service, regulated by the FCC. This means that telephone providers may not discriminate between customers accessing the same level of service. They must publish their prices, cannot charge different prices for the same service, can't refuse service, and must treat all carriage (in this case, phone conversations) equally.
Much of the ubiquity and fairness that people take for granted in the phone system is the result of common carrier regulations. The concept of common carrier dates back to before the railroads.
In 1996 Congress passed the Telecomm Act, which said that telephony will remain a common carrier service, but that Internet service is not. Originally DSL counted as the former, and cable modem as the latter. Now, after a long series of lawsuits and decisions, the ulimate result is that neither DSL nor cable modem count as common carriers.
So your post about history strikes me as ironic. Today the protections of equality that we enjoyed during the rapid growth of home Internet are gone. That is why we are fighting over "net neutrality" today, and we weren't 15 years ago.
You can develop and distribute apps without begging for permission, and Google specifically makes it easy to unlock the N1's bootloader (and void your warranty, yes), while Apple considers you to be a criminal if you jailbreak.
I've never seen a statement from Apple that it considers customers who jailbreak their own iPhones to be criminals. If they have, let me know and I'll be educated.
As far as I know both Apple and Google take the same approach to users who root their own phones: "we won't honor the warranty on it."
Does the drop in bars correlate to more dropped calls in that spot? I'm not convinced (on any phone) that bars always relate to calls. I have an old Motorola with an extendable antenna that gets great bars, but occasionally it just can't make calls, even with 5 bars.
Slashdot Mirror
The competitors' algorithms have to take these into account, while your algorithm can be designed to ignore them.
So what if everyone does this? Seems to me the net effect would be to introduce a delay into all electronic trading?
The time advantage is relative, so even if everyone is already delayed a bit, it would be to your benefit to try to delay your competitor even more. Thus the incentives would create longer and longer delays over time...which is exactly what most people want to happen to automated trading.
Stocks are a massive game of hot potato. Whoever is holding the stock with the game is over gets burned.
When is the game over? Do you mean when a company declares bankruptcy? (the game is over for that stock) Or when the market falls? (it goes up and down constantly) Or is the entire stock market going to crash and burn? (end of American society as we know it)
I agree that the goal of the stock market is not to maintain wealth--if you just want to maintain, you can't beat inflation-protected Treasuries. The stock market is a way to grow wealth, and the winning strategy is not a secret: dollar cost averaging and low-load index funds. It's not a get-rich-quick scheme, but it will grow wealth if given enough time.
If you're wheeling and dealing individual stocks, yeah, it's more like gambling. But that is only one way to play the stock market.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that limits on money are limits on speech, since it takes money to speak publicly.
Imagine a law that said that you are allowed to write whatever you want on the Internet, as long as you don't spend any money on an Internet connection or Web hosting. Would you consider that a limit on your speech? I would.
They broke the story of the secret network of CIA prisons in other nations.
The same reporter, Dana Priest, also wrote a series of stories that exposed the management problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Just two of their most well-known investigations recently.
Brake pads alone are a market larger than $5 billion, and counterfeiting is rampant there. What is the market size of replacement razor blades? Golf clubs? Batteries?
The bulk of the cost of counterfeit products is not when someone buys a $5 pair of Fauxkleys on the street. It is when someone buys a set of Toyota brakepads for full OEM price, but they weren't made by Toyota. Neither the mechanic nor the customer is aware that they are buying counterfeit goods, even when the pads wear out twice as fast as they should.
a) So don't issue any credit. You don't need to accept cash for sale of goods or services, only for debt. If you're selling, you can require people to pay in pure gold if you want.
b) Or do issue credit, but charge a sufficient interest rate to make money. Most mortgages last 30 years, and banks make money on them even taking inflation into account, because they charge a high enough interest rate.
U.S. military installations in Norway: 9
Norwegian military installation in the U.S.: 0
One reason the U.S. does not spend as much on social welfare is that we spend a lot more on our military. This benefits the social welfare states of Western Europe, including Norway.
I'd make an analogy here, except there's nothing in society we let people buy and sell that fast, certainly not giant entities....I'd like to see someone try to buy a house and resell it ten milliseconds later.
And I'd like to see the law that sets a limit on how fast we can buy and sell things--even houses.
It's usually not practically possible to buy and sell houses so quickly, because of the need for clear title, etc. But as far as I know there is no law or regulation that actually sets out time limits.
The problem with setting long minimum ownership times is that it creates low liquidity. I'm not saying we need millisecond transactions to make markets, but a month would be way too long.
Let's say you're right. Now Google has an index for cnn.com, and an index for spamdomain.com. Presumably the timestamps on the cnn.com pages are a bit earlier since it takes time for spamdomain.com to scrape and republish the content, and then for Google to index the new content on spamdomain.com.
I'm no computer scientist but it seems that this is the sort of data mirroring that should be pretty easy to spot algorithmically. If two domains share >80% of the exact same content, de-emphasize the one with later timestamps.
The provocative theory is that Google doesn't care which site ranks first, as long as its ads are being served on both. Or worse, that Google allows the crap to float to the top if it is carrying Google ads, and cnn.com is not.
Is the theory right? Who knows besides Google? Perhaps it is not so easy for the algorithm to distinguish what to our minds is obvious spamming. And one of the things that Google is up-front about is that if they can't do it algorithmically, they're not interested in it.
I switched mine to tap-to-click mode, in part because I was annoyed at the differing click pressures (as you note) and in part because the click is so loud. (and I am sometimes using my laptop next my sleeping wife)
It took a little getting used to, but I find that it works very well. I never could stand tap to click on my PC laptops, but I like it a lot on my MacBook Pro. I ended up getting a used Fingerworks trackpad for my PC, and now I'll probably pick up a "Magic" trackpad for my iMac at work. So I'm fully sold on tap to click. :-)
Touch products are great for RSI. That is why Fingerworks trackpads and keyboards were so popular with people who were having wrist problems.
They discard 5-finger inputs so you can relax--I mean completely relax--your hand directly on the touchpad when you are not moving the mouse...even between movements. It is a very more natural relaxed position--all fingers curled naturally downward...just like resting your hand on a table.
Movements on a touchpad take no force since you are only moving your fingers. Even light mice require more effort (tension) in your fingers to pinch and move. "Clicks" take only the most subtle of finger movements. Drags take no tension to hold down the button, since "drag" is a persistent state you invoke with a discrete gesture.
There are also fewer reasons to move the mouse, since so much can be done with gestures. I'll have to see how many the "Magic Trackpad" support, but with my Fingerworks pad on my PC, I can open and close windows, open and close documents, print, find, drag, scroll, switch windows, etc via gestures.
I was having a lot of problems with my right wrist, which is bad since I like to kayak for fun. After doing some research online I figured I would give a Fingerworks trackpad a try, and it has been a huge improvement for me. The above descriptions are my own thoughts about why it has been such a big help.
I'm excited for the Magic Trackpad (despite its stupid name) because my Fingerworks pad cost $250 used on eBay, and it's hooked up to my PC. I was looking for one for my Mac, and $69 sounds a lot better.
If ISPs want the rights inherent in operating as private networks, then they should bear the responsibilities for the content they privately decide to carry. For example, if an ISP is found to be transmitting child pornography, then as a private network they could be subject to prosecution for distributing it.
If they want to be exempted from such liability like other common carriers, then they should be expected to meet the responsibilities of other common carriers: publish tariffs and treat all cargo within each tariff equally.
Rights and responsibilities--in a civilized society they go together.
A lot of people do shoot pictures of things that don't move. I do know how to operate a view camera, and you'll doubtlessly be shocked to learn that I first tried it out as a rank amateur (and long before KenRockwell.com hit the Webs).
It sounds like you're the type of person he's talking about in the quote I put in my post. You seem very hung up on your own conception of what constitutes photography, and you're upset when someone talks about it in a different way.
As I said before, the point of the article is to encourage people to think of serious photography more broadly than just DSLRs. That message doesn't seem to resonate with you, but there's no reason to get angry about it. I don't use a view camera these days; I use a DSLR mostly, or a waterproof point and shoot. But I recognize their limitations in the greater scope of photography--I know I'm trading off lower image quality for greater convenience. And if you read other articles on the site, you'll see that Ken does too. The post that first mentioned him linked to a humorous article about it:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm
Looks to me like Tab Candy is basically a windowing manager built as a Firefox extension. This means it is a windowing manager written in HTML, CSS, and Javascript. That's not exactly a high-performance stack, especially given Firefox's penchant to leak memory over time.
Why not let the OS manage your windows? It's much better equipped to do so. On OS X I can open every link in a new window, and use Expose to sort them out. Or I can be smart about grouping tabs per window....work tabs in one window, search in another, etc. And Firefox lets me drag tabs on and off windows so I can rearrange them pretty easily.
I've read that article and its revisions many times. It's always struck me as very reasonable, with quotes like:
Neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application the debate goes away. The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else's needs mirror their own.
So why the debate? I suspect the debate is among amateurs who've really only shot 35mm since it's been the only popular amateur film format for the past 25 years. Pros never say "film," they say a format like "120," "4x5," "6x17," "8x20" or "35" since "film" could mean so many things. Amateurs say "film" since they only use one format and presume 35mm. Therein lies the potential for debate when people don't first define their terminology. Today's digital SLRs replace 35mm, no big deal. Most people will get far better prints from a 6MP DSLR like the D70 than they will paying someone else to print their 35mm film.
The point of the article is to educate people about film photography vs. digital photography. It's not a 35mm format shootout. One of his constantly-recurring themes is that there is more to photography than 35mm. A 4x5 view camera that shoots film will cost less than a top-end DSLR and will capture much higher resolution. On the other hand, you can only use it for certain types of pictures. He addresses these and other tradeoffs. Be sure to read the thing from top to bottom--don't just skip to the pictures and read the captions.
You're right, I should have typed 80 ASA.
He's an electrical engineer who's worked in imaging for most of his adult life. Don't let the jocular writing fool you.
Kodachrome was the first popular color slide film. As such it defined how color slides "should" look to a generation of photographers.
Kodachrome has extremely fine grain and does not have the dye clouds that early E6 slide film did, because the color is added during processing. Thus it was the best for big enlargements.
Kodachrome had the best color saturation of slide films for a long time, especially if it was slightly underexposed. National Geographic nature photographers typically shot Kodachrome 64 at 50 ASA for instance.
Kodachrome had deep, rich blacks because it responded to light like a black-and-white film. In addition, because it responded similar to black and white, you could use an approximation of the Zone System with it.
Kodachrome eventually lost all of these advantages as E6 films got better and better. For nature photography, it was firmly dethroned by Fuji Velvia 50.
E6 films are a lot easier to process, thus you could take it a local lab and get it back in a few hours on a rush job.
Companies like Fuji and Kodak improved the dye cloud size and character until it matched or beat Kodachrome 64. Velvia 50 is just as good for enlargements as Kodachrome 64, if not better.
Companies also developed very fine control of color and blackness characteristics of E6 films. You could buy Velvia for deep shadows and heavy saturation--great for nature photography, but terrible for skin tones. Other films optimized for portraits, which meant less heavy saturation and shadows. This also helped photographers get past the "normalcy" of the Kodachrome look.
Galen Rowell wrote quite a bit about his move from Kodachrome to Velvia in one of his books...I think it was "Mountain Light."
Seems to me that autofill creates a database of personal information that is accessible by the Internet and dependent on a browser's security model. Does any kind of software have a worse record for security than Web browsers? (Maybe e-mail clients?)
The first thing I do in any browser is turn off autofill for all fields. Anything I need to type into a form is either already in my head or I can look it up easily (credit card number for instance). Either way, it's personal info that IMO does not need to be attached permanently to the Internet.
True if you want a written response. But if you want to make them think twice about their vote, call. Nothing is more miserable for a Congressional office than a flood of phone calls. This is especially true for House members, who don't have big staffs. Everyone has to drop what they're doing to take angry phone calls all day.
Letters with stamps don't make the same impact on the staff, and thanks to the mandatory radiation treatment (thanks anthrax), they take forever to get there.
Just for context: 20 years ago was 1990. The Web was not even invented yet; very few people had Internet access at home.
When home Internet use started growing in the mid and late 1990s, it was via modems and telephone lines. Home telephony was (and is) a common carrier service, regulated by the FCC. This means that telephone providers may not discriminate between customers accessing the same level of service. They must publish their prices, cannot charge different prices for the same service, can't refuse service, and must treat all carriage (in this case, phone conversations) equally.
Much of the ubiquity and fairness that people take for granted in the phone system is the result of common carrier regulations. The concept of common carrier dates back to before the railroads.
In 1996 Congress passed the Telecomm Act, which said that telephony will remain a common carrier service, but that Internet service is not. Originally DSL counted as the former, and cable modem as the latter. Now, after a long series of lawsuits and decisions, the ulimate result is that neither DSL nor cable modem count as common carriers.
So your post about history strikes me as ironic. Today the protections of equality that we enjoyed during the rapid growth of home Internet are gone. That is why we are fighting over "net neutrality" today, and we weren't 15 years ago.
You can develop and distribute apps without begging for permission, and Google specifically makes it easy to unlock the N1's bootloader (and void your warranty, yes), while Apple considers you to be a criminal if you jailbreak.
I've never seen a statement from Apple that it considers customers who jailbreak their own iPhones to be criminals. If they have, let me know and I'll be educated.
As far as I know both Apple and Google take the same approach to users who root their own phones: "we won't honor the warranty on it."
Does the drop in bars correlate to more dropped calls in that spot? I'm not convinced (on any phone) that bars always relate to calls. I have an old Motorola with an extendable antenna that gets great bars, but occasionally it just can't make calls, even with 5 bars.
Obviously he's an optimist.
She did not complete her first term as governor of Alaska.