Well, technically HFT is illegal, it is just a matter of if a judge will agree hold them to it or not. Generally courts have found, well, at least for small fries, novel technical solutions do not make something legal when doing it by hand would not be. HFT is automated front running, nothing more.
yeah, but the exchanges can really profit from inertia here. They only have to be fair enough for investors to not leave for exchanges with less usage on them. Kinda like PayPal, no one likes them, sellers and buyers know the company is corrupt, but it is where the buyers and sellers are so if you want access to other people using it you have to use it to. PayPal profits off this as long as they keep their corruption low enough to not cause a mass exodus. Same with the exchanges, investors know they are corrupt, but that is where the other investors are, so as long as they do not get TOO corrupt, investors will use them. People have tried building alternative exchanges that avoid the various conflicts of interest, but not enough people are using them for people to, well, use them.
Or an even simpler solution, extend the laws that make a human doing this illegal to cover automated systems too. HFT is only 'legal' because they can scream 'but it is being done by technology!', but as various court cases with file sharing have shown, assuming the judge feels like it, novel technological implementations are not a panacea against legal repercussions. Unless of course you have good lawyers, weak regulation, and an industry that is profiting from the transgression, in which case a judge might indeed magically find that the technicality is enough to get them off.
Beyond initial pay though there is a bigger problem, job prospects. Young programmers often look at jobs in terms of how good it will look on a resume when trying to find their next job, and mainframe jobs are perceived as being resume stains, filled with buzzwords that will get your resume thrown in the bin even at another company using similarly aged technology.
No, but the point is, a lot of these 'rush to market' drones we are seeing are not exactly secured, and there are a lot of bored people out there that loves screwing with other people's stuff. In the same way there are people who get giggles out of shining lasers at passing helecopters, I would not be surprised if there are people around that decide to see if there are vulnerable drones around and mess with them. If it was also happening earlier in the day, I would not be surprised if some spectator said to themselves 'hey, I recognize that type of drone, didn't I see something about them in a post?', doing a quick google, and then seeing if they can take it down.
Well, if they really cared they would simply earn more money and live elsewhere, after all since they had full awareness of everything around their property they choose to live with the risk of living near a pipeline and since opportunity is available to all they must be lazy since they choose to be poor, so this is really their fault.
Keep in mind, the money does not just go into one simple pot and then departments pull back out. Student tuition goes to pay for things related to teaching students. Money for research comes out of grants and patents/licenses. There is going to be some overlap, but not as much as you might think. In fact often the research budget helps keep tuition costs down.
Patents are how universities actually pay for their research. They do not get anywhere NEAR enough from grants and other funding sources to do what they do.
If people truly want them to serve the public good and open up all their research, then they will have to also figure out where to get the money from.
No, it really is overzealous. In the few months I have owned the car it has engaged more times then I have actually skidded in the last 20 years combined. It is kicking in too often over too small of skids and the drop in speed is being more dangerous then the few milliseconds of easily corrected skid from some random puddle.
OKCupid is briefly bringing it to the attention of Firefox users and then allowing them to continue using the site unimpeded. As 'retaliation' goes that is pretty damn mild. Also keep in mind this is an issue that directly effects their business model, so this is not just some random person's political speech, this is someone who was engaged in passing a class of law what not only would impact nearly a 10th of their user base but would by proxy impact their corporate mission and profits.
I am also getting rather tired of this 'making people afraid to voice their viewpoints' meme. The anti-gay movement is not even remotely afraid to voice their views, they are in a very strong position. Even if they were, maybe they should be. The groups behind these campaigns are generally accustomed to being on the giving side of discrimination to the point they see any loss of their privileged position as some type of persecution. Thus they tend to want immunity for actually being called to task for the things they say and do and whine when they do not get it, even when what they were trying to accomplish was worse on others. So maybe they should actually fear some repercussions, it might make them think more about people unlike themselves.
Well, if your action impacts other people (when trying to pass laws requiring others to take the same actions), esp ones who are not part of your faith, yeah, you are going to get called out on it.
Hush you! Actually reading patents might make them sound less idiotic, and you know how much complex details ruin a perfectly good rant! You have to simplify them down to a single line and then scream that *insert company that is popular to hate* is patenting the wheel again.
I keep hearing this, but so far I have encountered about the same amount of branch conflict in git as I have with SVN, just with the added complexity of local repo vs checkout. But I have not found any magical advantage in its ability to merge a file that has been changed by two different developers.
That strikes me as an issue with your server, not SVN. I have worked on projects where SVN handled tens of thousands of files, dozens of branches, thousands of tags, etc, and found syncing to be pretty reasonable. In fact we switched over to SVN in part because Clear Case was having trouble keeping up with the volume.
I can answer at least some of that. I am a long time SVN user who is now using git, and while I would not call it 'awful', I do find the 'local repo' structure to be frustrating and needlessly complex, and generally comes across as over-engineered. Kinda like ClearCase, it can handle more complex situations then SVN, but that additional support causes complexity to seep into simpler cases.
I have also had difficulties with the client that I never had under SVN, with pretty much no luck with it working 'out of the box' on any of the machines I use. So in each case I have had to install the full development chain in order to rebuild the client because the one already installed is incompatible. SVN, for all its dullness, tends to be pretty conservative about changes and generally the distro installed one works.
However, for my use case, the community aspect (i.e. the finding projects) and traveling are not important, so those advantages do not get me much.
In all seriousness, SVN and git have strengths and weaknesses depending on the project and its needs, though usually the biggest one is going to be 'what do your developers already know'. Git was built to support distributed projects and is really strong in those cases, SVN was built to be highly centralized and administered and tends to be stronger when that is the plan. For most small projects they are functionally equivalent, well, outside git's 'local repo' system, which ads a bit of unnecessary complexity in simple cases.
In this case at least, it is due to the new CEO not adhering to 'live and let live'. Gay rights activists rarely care about people's personal religious beliefs, it is when they put resources into having those beliefs enshrined in law and thus using state power to force their religion on others that people get annoyed.
I think there might be something to be said for keeping with older behaviors at least. Older car behaviors were fairly obvious, the car did what you told it to do, newer ones you kinda have to guess at what the manufacturer THINKS you are going to do and then what the car will actually do.
Just this weekend I nearly got into an accident when my new car's 'anti-skid' protection switched on unexpectedly.....
In a case like that, the inflation would help the average citizen and only really hurt the top earners. The money supply would expand by ~350 trillion, but the distribution of that expansion would be very flat, which means the people at the bottom would on average be in better shape then they were.
Ahm, I am not sure how that relates to what I said. I was pointing out that this is a 'free market', with the government being another variable that companies must take into account, just like fuel prices and consumer demand.
The actual utility of various regulations is another topic entirely.
Eh, a lot of people take a very literal pedantic view of the law and regulation and believe they find loopholes through some narrow usage of various words. Kinda like how the sovereign citizens claim to not be subject to US law via some very selective and literal interpretations of various documents while completely ignoring the legal reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, technically HFT is illegal, it is just a matter of if a judge will agree hold them to it or not. Generally courts have found, well, at least for small fries, novel technical solutions do not make something legal when doing it by hand would not be. HFT is automated front running, nothing more.
yeah, but the exchanges can really profit from inertia here. They only have to be fair enough for investors to not leave for exchanges with less usage on them. Kinda like PayPal, no one likes them, sellers and buyers know the company is corrupt, but it is where the buyers and sellers are so if you want access to other people using it you have to use it to. PayPal profits off this as long as they keep their corruption low enough to not cause a mass exodus. Same with the exchanges, investors know they are corrupt, but that is where the other investors are, so as long as they do not get TOO corrupt, investors will use them. People have tried building alternative exchanges that avoid the various conflicts of interest, but not enough people are using them for people to, well, use them.
Or an even simpler solution, extend the laws that make a human doing this illegal to cover automated systems too. HFT is only 'legal' because they can scream 'but it is being done by technology!', but as various court cases with file sharing have shown, assuming the judge feels like it, novel technological implementations are not a panacea against legal repercussions. Unless of course you have good lawyers, weak regulation, and an industry that is profiting from the transgression, in which case a judge might indeed magically find that the technicality is enough to get them off.
Beyond initial pay though there is a bigger problem, job prospects. Young programmers often look at jobs in terms of how good it will look on a resume when trying to find their next job, and mainframe jobs are perceived as being resume stains, filled with buzzwords that will get your resume thrown in the bin even at another company using similarly aged technology.
No, but the point is, a lot of these 'rush to market' drones we are seeing are not exactly secured, and there are a lot of bored people out there that loves screwing with other people's stuff. In the same way there are people who get giggles out of shining lasers at passing helecopters, I would not be surprised if there are people around that decide to see if there are vulnerable drones around and mess with them. If it was also happening earlier in the day, I would not be surprised if some spectator said to themselves 'hey, I recognize that type of drone, didn't I see something about them in a post?', doing a quick google, and then seeing if they can take it down.
Well, if they really cared they would simply earn more money and live elsewhere, after all since they had full awareness of everything around their property they choose to live with the risk of living near a pipeline and since opportunity is available to all they must be lazy since they choose to be poor, so this is really their fault.
Keep in mind, the money does not just go into one simple pot and then departments pull back out. Student tuition goes to pay for things related to teaching students. Money for research comes out of grants and patents/licenses. There is going to be some overlap, but not as much as you might think. In fact often the research budget helps keep tuition costs down.
Patents are how universities actually pay for their research. They do not get anywhere NEAR enough from grants and other funding sources to do what they do.
If people truly want them to serve the public good and open up all their research, then they will have to also figure out where to get the money from.
Well, that is how they stay competitive with all the other subsidized industries.
No, it really is overzealous. In the few months I have owned the car it has engaged more times then I have actually skidded in the last 20 years combined. It is kicking in too often over too small of skids and the drop in speed is being more dangerous then the few milliseconds of easily corrected skid from some random puddle.
OKCupid is briefly bringing it to the attention of Firefox users and then allowing them to continue using the site unimpeded. As 'retaliation' goes that is pretty damn mild. Also keep in mind this is an issue that directly effects their business model, so this is not just some random person's political speech, this is someone who was engaged in passing a class of law what not only would impact nearly a 10th of their user base but would by proxy impact their corporate mission and profits.
I am also getting rather tired of this 'making people afraid to voice their viewpoints' meme. The anti-gay movement is not even remotely afraid to voice their views, they are in a very strong position. Even if they were, maybe they should be. The groups behind these campaigns are generally accustomed to being on the giving side of discrimination to the point they see any loss of their privileged position as some type of persecution. Thus they tend to want immunity for actually being called to task for the things they say and do and whine when they do not get it, even when what they were trying to accomplish was worse on others. So maybe they should actually fear some repercussions, it might make them think more about people unlike themselves.
Well, if your action impacts other people (when trying to pass laws requiring others to take the same actions), esp ones who are not part of your faith, yeah, you are going to get called out on it.
Hush you! Actually reading patents might make them sound less idiotic, and you know how much complex details ruin a perfectly good rant! You have to simplify them down to a single line and then scream that *insert company that is popular to hate* is patenting the wheel again.
I keep hearing this, but so far I have encountered about the same amount of branch conflict in git as I have with SVN, just with the added complexity of local repo vs checkout. But I have not found any magical advantage in its ability to merge a file that has been changed by two different developers.
Branching does not seem any harder or easier.
That strikes me as an issue with your server, not SVN. I have worked on projects where SVN handled tens of thousands of files, dozens of branches, thousands of tags, etc, and found syncing to be pretty reasonable. In fact we switched over to SVN in part because Clear Case was having trouble keeping up with the volume.
I can answer at least some of that. I am a long time SVN user who is now using git, and while I would not call it 'awful', I do find the 'local repo' structure to be frustrating and needlessly complex, and generally comes across as over-engineered. Kinda like ClearCase, it can handle more complex situations then SVN, but that additional support causes complexity to seep into simpler cases.
I have also had difficulties with the client that I never had under SVN, with pretty much no luck with it working 'out of the box' on any of the machines I use. So in each case I have had to install the full development chain in order to rebuild the client because the one already installed is incompatible. SVN, for all its dullness, tends to be pretty conservative about changes and generally the distro installed one works.
However, for my use case, the community aspect (i.e. the finding projects) and traveling are not important, so those advantages do not get me much.
Let the religious wars begin!
In all seriousness, SVN and git have strengths and weaknesses depending on the project and its needs, though usually the biggest one is going to be 'what do your developers already know'. Git was built to support distributed projects and is really strong in those cases, SVN was built to be highly centralized and administered and tends to be stronger when that is the plan. For most small projects they are functionally equivalent, well, outside git's 'local repo' system, which ads a bit of unnecessary complexity in simple cases.
In this case at least, it is due to the new CEO not adhering to 'live and let live'. Gay rights activists rarely care about people's personal religious beliefs, it is when they put resources into having those beliefs enshrined in law and thus using state power to force their religion on others that people get annoyed.
I think there might be something to be said for keeping with older behaviors at least. Older car behaviors were fairly obvious, the car did what you told it to do, newer ones you kinda have to guess at what the manufacturer THINKS you are going to do and then what the car will actually do.
Just this weekend I nearly got into an accident when my new car's 'anti-skid' protection switched on unexpectedly.....
In a case like that, the inflation would help the average citizen and only really hurt the top earners. The money supply would expand by ~350 trillion, but the distribution of that expansion would be very flat, which means the people at the bottom would on average be in better shape then they were.
Ahm, I am not sure how that relates to what I said. I was pointing out that this is a 'free market', with the government being another variable that companies must take into account, just like fuel prices and consumer demand.
The actual utility of various regulations is another topic entirely.
Eh, a lot of people take a very literal pedantic view of the law and regulation and believe they find loopholes through some narrow usage of various words. Kinda like how the sovereign citizens claim to not be subject to US law via some very selective and literal interpretations of various documents while completely ignoring the legal reality.
*nods* it is generally easier to offer a cheaper price when your services do not have to pay the same costs as your competition.
The government is just another variable in competition. If companies can not survive political realities then they are not competitive in that market.
It would probably be monochrome, so black and white vision.