Name one computer that comes from the factory with the necessary software to intercept and record unencrypted traffic from an open Wi-Fi? Anybody who wishes to intercept and record such Information from an open wireless network, must obtain special software for the purpose. This is easy enough to do, but such software does not come standard with any computer that I know of.
How about Mac OSX laptops which ship with tcpdump by default? I don't think you should argue from a point of ignorance. Just because you don't know something to be true doesn't mean it isn't. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3994
Only a person with a nefarious desire to eavesdrop would go to such effort.
Well, I must be pretty nefarious for having diagnostic tools like that on all of the machines I own then. I should preemptively turn myself into the authorities before I accidentally capture innocent packets.
Posting in reply to my own post... Bad form, I know. Just a couple of details since this is something which personally interest me...
Considering I get about 45mpg on my 2006, averaged over 600 miles driving around Chicagoland, on regular diesel (low of 35 in bad traffic and a high of around 52 on the freeway) losing 5mpg is a trade I would be willing to make to switch off of diesel and onto biodiesel (100%)... Now if only I could just pump it into my tank at the gas station instead of having to procure and clean my own from fry oil...
Many of the restaurant chains or their suppliers are now taking back used fry oil because they realized they could do the same thing as the guys at home and use it in their fleet trucks to reduce costs. This relatively recent development has made it harder to self-produce. And some jurisdictions don't like it because they do not collect road-use type taxes on fuel you produce yourself.
Emission production as you state it is only a problem on a local level where the emissions are most concentrated (dense cities). Even electric cars will have emissions (either in production or at whatever plant is making the electricity for it). It's the part about digging up materials which have been locked underground for millions of years and then releasing those emissions into the atmosphere that is the global problem. If all of the energy and consumables your vehicle used during it's entire lifetime (including manufacture) were harvested from plants or otherwise scraped off of the surface of the biosphere instead of from within the ground you would essentially be close to net-neutral impact on the planet as far as emissions are concerned (not that there is no impact, it would just be ridiculously low impact).
Biodiesel (as usable in my VW Jetta) is only a little less efficient than petrol / oil based diesel. Mileage is about 5mpg lower or so, but you have to make sure the biodiesel is clean of other contaminants which can be a bit laborious depending on the original source. Of course most people I am aware of will typically use an 85/15 blend for better performance (15% regular diesel).
As far as emissions go, I don't think it's too much different but I don't know much about that. I guess it would entirely depend on how "clean" and viable the input is.
In any case, if we can turn something which truly does not have a better use other than to be cleaned (at great expense) and sent back into the biome into a usable fuel at less expense I fully support research into it. It seems to be much smarter than ethanol where suddenly the price of fuel becomes linked to the price of food. We honestly don't currently have a better use for human sewage anyways considering it is not considered fit for fertilizer either. Besides, if this comes to America just think of how much fatty acids are already present in the McSewage, or how we could just re-introduce Olean oil if we needed to increase production (how's that for a disgusting thought?).
Break her expectations and that might be a possible outcome. Find yourself a woman without expectations of some fantasy wedding they have been dreaming up based on a Disney movie they saw in their childhood and you are golden.
Choosing to marry a woman expecting a fantasy wedding, not communicating fully about expectations before hand, and then breaking her expectations is your fault three times over (at least).
Congratulations! I also was married last weekend. I got lucky and found a wife who basically was not interested in the designer / Disney / fairytale wedding either. She only wanted a 1/3 karat single stone engagement ring and 1/3 karat total wedding band (around $1000 for both) for "practicality" reasons. I spent less than a grand on the wedding and reception and that included booking all of our nuclear families (and their spouses / kids), and a couple of close friends in hotels for 2 days (8 rooms) since most of them had to drive for about 6-7 hours to get to us from out of state. She picked up a skirt at Kohl's for $80 which made a perfect wedding dress (looked the part too) and we had a nice BBQ at a local forest preserve afterwards ($45 park reservation + $250 in food and charcoal). We definitely had the means by which to spend more money on this whole affair but neither of us felt we needed to (I asked her what she wanted first before offering my opinion). Both of us couldn't be happier about our decision as our financial life was not disrupted by any of this (total cost ~$2,000 split over multiple months). And that was for doing everything in Chicagoland, not in the sticks somewhere.
So yeah, find yourself a bride who doesn't feel that the expense of the wedding is the more important part over the experience of it. Weddings are not supposed to be a celebration of how fast or how much debt you can rack up throwing a party, they are supposed to be fundamentally more important than that. Besides, your lives will likely have other big purchases not too far down the road which would be a better use of capital (house, cars, children, etc). Find a worthwhile bride as the parent poster pointed out.
However, they do tend to post their reasoning and references behind their assertions... And that is a damn sight better than blind assertions or having to choose faith from authority. Sometimes the judges (being human which also means being biased, low-information, lazy, sick, impatient, etc at times) are indeed wrong or performing poorly. Once they put on the black robe they don't become perfect after all.
I've been impressed with the number of times I would normally have to do a [citation needed] but been pleasantly surprised at the fact that they took the time to dig up old exhibits, get other opinions from lawyers and specialists, list the relevant court documents directly from PACER or otherwise expand on the logic behind their reasoning. It's a very technical discussion of very complicated issues which is oddly and refreshingly accessible to even a lay-person who is not trained in lawyer-fu and doesn't speak legaleze. I would go so far as to assert that if politicians were required to reference all of their assertions at least as well as Groklaw references and explains theirs then politics would be a dead and unnecessary art after a couple of straight forward debates (barring incomprehensible idiots amongst the population who would cut off their nose to spite their face).
To use an example; I could assert that Romney frequently tends to come off as awkward and stiff under public pressure whereas Obama still tends to come off as collected and calm under the same. Some people would disagree with me because of a variety of reasons possibly including that they have political reasons not to like Obama or to speak in favor of Romney. However, a reader asserting bias in my observation is basically showing the bias of the reader themselves. My statements can be evaluated on their face and I could source plenty of incidents of this happening. So, is my assertion fundamentally an opinion at this point? Yes. An opinion which can be backed by examples? Yes. Biased? Not really. Partisan? No.
Groklaw explaining court proceedings works like that, and they do post their opinions and their relevant references inline in the same pieces. You also have access to the raw documents yourself and are free to draw your own conclusions because you have the same information available to you as they do. But you also have to think a little on how well you believe yourself to understand the matters at hand better than they do.
Completely partisan analysis as you assert implies they are hiding, misrepresenting, or otherwise masking information which I have seen no evidence to support. Care to provide examples? I haven't seen any incidence of them failing to back or retract potentially controversial assertions.
No, an IOC order should resolve to either filled, partially filled (with the rest pending fill or cancelled), or fully cancelled within a second at most. Any longer than this and you really need to call the exchange to find out what happened or to have them remove the order from the matching engine.
Most of the time, with IOC orders, if you get filled after more than 4-5 seconds you can rightfully expect the exchange to bust those fills since that isn't really immediate or cancelled.
The amount of time you wait before calling the exchange to cancel the order directly impacts your options for resolutions later.
If you don't call about a missing order for 2 hours then you are liable for that 2 hour window. If you call immediately but they can't fix your order for 2 hours they are responsible for it (most of the time).
This is mostly about FIX and not OUCH protocols (but IIRC they work the same or similarly for this purpose):
The TCP sequence number isn't related at all in these streams to the order ID. There actually is a separate sequence number which tracks the fix protocol stream to make sure all of the messages were received and got parsed, and the order id is only to make sure none of the orders get duplicated and control messages (cancels, fills, etc.) are attributed to the right order. The order ID doesn't track missing orders AT ALL or make sure your order isn't floating in space somewhere. You can have multiple orders pending through one session at a time with wildly different ClOrderID's. For instance, you could have orders with ID's "jimbob", "timbob", "whopee", and "1xa3vr47pt2" all sent into the exchange through one session at once. Start sending "new order" fix messages with new sequences and old client order ID's and you will just get rejects for those messages. Start sending old sequence numbers with the resend flag set (closer to protocol) and you are likely to cause a sequence number reset message with the exchange (which can screw the pooch on your session unless you wrote to spec EXACTLY).
If you increment the sequence number without changing the client order ID you are then sending a NEW order with the same order ID and you will likely receive an order reject message from the exchange for the resent order (confused yet?). Doing this is an easy way to confuse your own state tracking unless you are very prudent in how you parse the protocol messages since you will receive a reject message with the orderid of BOTH of your orders, but the reject will be on a specific sequence number to tell you which particular message was rejected. If you don't take sequence number into account while tracking state then you will close out a VALID AND PENDING order on your system (but not the exchange) because you tried being a smart butterfly and sent it in twice... (Yes, I've seen this happen)
Using the resend flag on a message with an incremented sequence number is a really easy way to get your session disconnected from the exchange unless you have built a rather robust fix processor on your side and you have thoroughly tested this with the exchange during certification.
In any case, if your fix messaging is keeping sequences appropriately with the exchange (which it likely was during this issue between NSDQ and UBS), attempting to do ANYTHING with the orderID other than cancel it is a really easy way to screw yourself... Resending orderid's in a fast / repeat fashion is a really easy way to find a race condition bug in the matching engine or your own fix parser and screw yourself...
Unless of course you count the 896 GPU cores per GPU node ( 448 cores per card, x2 per box, x144 boxes, for a cool 129,024 GPU cores).
Yeah, token GPU work... Seems to me like they appropriately sized the compute capabilities of what could be accellerated by cuda rather appropriately considering it's only a specific set of operations which can be accelerated by it in the first place.
Take a look at what gets accelerated by BOINC projects on NVIDIA / ATI GPU cores. Some projects cannot be sped up at all by CUDA or OpenCL, others like PrimeGrid (some sub-projects) are accelerated heavily by it (20x+ speedup over CPU IIRC). It all depends on the specific work-load involved and the family of cards chosen.
I stand by my assertion that no millionaire who is doing anything remotely half smart will pay %35 on their gross income for the year (reported and non-reported).
They will pay the %35 on their salary, (lets say 200K in your example) and then they will only pay 15% in capital gains on the ROI. Lets say they had the 1 million invested in growth investments which accrue, lets say for example, 85K during the year.
So they pay 70,000 (35%) on the salary and 12750K (15%) on the investments (assuming they withdraw the full gains for some stupid reason)
So they had an income of 285,000 - 82,750 (income tax + capital gains) = 202,250 net If everything was 35% it is 285,000 - 99,750 (everything counting as income) = 185,250 net
So that is 17,000 extra cash in their pocket since they get it at the cheaper capital gains rate... Any questions on how millionaires can get away with less than 35% tax rate on income?
Smart people with some breathing room in their budget roll that 17,000 back into their investment portfolio before even taking it out to avoid paying tax on it until it has worked for them for quite some time. Same reason people take stock options instead of salary and the like, they defer the tax payment on it until it has done more work for them then it was worth in the first place. People without a bankroll cannot afford to part with enough money for long enough to do this same activity (except for the comparably slower growth 401K type accounts) and a much higher percentage of their REAL income goes immediately towards taxes which they cannot offset or skirt as they need the cash immediately to live off of.
So yes, you would be stupid to pay the full %35 on your income when you have a few million dollars to your name, and the more money you have the less you pay on its income. At the same time, if you are still looking for a pay raise in raw salary after you are making 1 mil a year, you really should consider alternative compensation options, spend less on your extravagant lifestyle, or just suck it up and realize that you didn't make your fortunes all by your lonesome in your own little bubble separate from the rest of your fellow Americans.
You can argue the implications of what this system does to income disparity and whatnot on whatever grounds you like, but you will not convince me that people in the %1 pay more in taxes as a percentage of their gross income. It has been the subject of jokes and many a laughing conversation about how they find the newest way to make money without paying taxes on it that have been had in my general vicinity.
Didn't notice your example of 200K in a 401K either,, let that be your safe funds, diversify the rest into higher risk and more opportunistic investments. If you aren't getting at least $40,000 improvement on your investments in a year you aren't even beating inflation and your investment strategy sucks.
Honestly, if you invest into growth investments you can shoot for $50,000+ increase in worth annually starting with $1million right now, risk a little more (with some personal involvement instead of passing it off to a fund) and you can potentially make much, much better returns.
Millionaire decides to ignore tax breaks and rules designed to work in his favor and decides to pay what people a few income brackets lower cannot afford to skirt, complains about the effective tax rate everyone else has to pay without a choice. News at 11.
Now if only he could convince the rest of the millionaires to do that and the tax rates could drop. I kid, I kid, but really, about 1/2 of my income evaporates before I get to it as well, and I can't afford to roll my income over and over to get around those pesky taxes. So cry me a river.
I'm not in favor of the system as it is setup for the millionaires and I personally believe there are many flaws in the tax policy, but in raw terms people who make a million dollars and pay %35 income taxes are STILL doing it wrong from the perspective of accruing wealth.
This system is NOT balanced between your forced obligations as a person making 200K and a person making 1 Million, there is a huge difference between those. One can easily skirt the taxes and the other cannot.
First of all, Obama's tax had nothing to do with people worth a million dollars. It's people making an income worth that much in a year.
Second of all, on a 200K salary I'm not quite sure how you would both get a 500K home and 250K in cars without being an idiot up to your eyeballs in debt, but lets assume (somehow) that they have paid for all of that in cash and do not have "debt" attached currently (maybe they had a one time lottery winning or something?). You are still doing it wrong.
The parts they are doing stupid is having 250K in cars and 50K in a regular bank account and so much money tied up in a paid-off mortgage as compared to income. The cars tend to depreciate or will accrue value very slowly, and the 50K sitting in a bank account will do nothing of use. The house is nice, but having 1/2 of your net worth (and two and a half years of gross income) tied up in a single home is a very high risk stra..er.... lack of strategy. It would make sense to have a mortgage on the home, and spend a large portion of the 500K on something with higher returns to be honest. Mortgage interest rates right now are really low (lower tan investment returns really).
In other words, if your net value is 1 Million and you have all but 50K tied up in one house and cars, you have not done your due diligence in spreading out your exposure (diversifying your funds) and you definitely are not having your money work for you. Congratulations, you have just sunk all of your money in slow or no growth places.
Also, at 200K salary you would only qualify as a millionaire if you saved more than 5 years worth of salary, so you can see how this doesn't quite put you into the same league as the people making 1 million annually or have 2-3million in income investments. Hell, you are barely just getting a chance to play in the sandbox. However, if you continue doing this and putting your money in smart places instead of one house and a bunch of cars you can double or triple your net worth every few years. Obviously, you have to lead a life where you don't spend money on stupid shit like you're a millionaire though.
Honestly if you have a net worth of 1 million dollars and an annual income of 200K, you should limit yourself to a 350K or so house (on 15 or 20 year mortgage), 2 cars at ~40K or so at most (with a loan or lease to taste), pickup an income property or two or three (home rentals are smart bets with so many people foreclosed on, and the renters pay your mortgage i.e. they pay to increase your equity in the property).
Do you see where I am going with this? Invest your money into things which return money faster than inflation and you can eventually play with the big boys. Also, this person worth a million dollars with a 200K salary is probably not making any jobs. If you spend money like this I don't see how you would run a business.
Once someone has a few million they do not pay %35 income tax (unless they are pretty stupid), they do not struggle to meet any burden related to paying the taxes they do have.
And if you consider hiring a wealth management firm to invest your money to be "work". Or you think $5 million to be hard to come by for the people who already have cash... I might suggest taking a look at what exactly a private equity firm is and does.
Bankrolling is not a hard game compared to working all of your life, it's just a game that has a high barrier to entry.
No, I'm not assuming that. What I'm saying is that once you have a few million dollars, the taxable wages you earn becomes a pittance compared to the money you "make" via other means (which is taxed at less than 1/2 of the income tax).
You should never see someone who has a million dollars (or two) in the bank paying the full %35 on the increases to their net worth annually. Money begets more money, and if you have none you don't get to enjoy that fact. And if you can't make more money off of your capital gains on 5 million dollars than you draw annually in salary you are doing something else incredibly (INCREDIBLY) stupid. Try taking less salary and more stock options for instance.
If they are paying %35 on all increases in capital they accrue during the course of a year (or more than ~%15-20 anyways) they are doing something severely stupid with their money.
As you stated charities never adequately meet mass demand (they can't typically afford to stockpile any resources). Governments will never reach every person and smallest need (too blunt of an instrument). Let the government do the heavy lifting on the basics and let the charities meet the needs of those who would otherwise fall through the cracks or for those who has special needs.
I know it's bad form to post a reply to your own post but here is a little thought experiment:
Given $5 million tax-free in the initial state (directly invested into non-liquid funds) or so I could set myself (or anyone else for that matter) up in such a setup as to be able to exist off of nothing but the capital gains and asset improvements so long as they acted like they made the median household income ($40-50k) as opposed to living like a millionaire. Even if you could never ever touch the original $5 million. In addition to that, you would have a nominal tax rate of 15% on any money you withdrew from your assets, and that is only if you don't do asset swaps for the things you want.
And pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. First they fall into the highest tax bracket of 35% then pay AMT on top of that, plus capital gains on anything else.
You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax. They would have to be completely ignorant and stupid about how to handle money.
I work in the financial industry surrounded by people IN that income bracket. What they do is transfer funds or take their income directly into non-liquid (non-cash) capital like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real-estate, stock ownership whatever. Then they roll their cash over, and over, and over again by transferring it between these assets when they are performing well. This increases the total assets they own without it showing up on their "income" sheet. They bankroll money generating schemes and occasionally start small businesses (mostly geared around how to make themselves more money), but rarely do they start something like a public service industry or a manufacturing firm fresh. They would more likely buy an existing company, layoff 1/2 of the staff, reduce worker pay, "increase productivity", offshore any software development, etc. and then sell their stakes in the company (frequently in exchange for other non-cash assets). This is exactly how Romney has made his money and is exactly where he holds his cash (assets within other companies). He is living off of the dividends payed to him for this sort of work to this day. He no longer "works" for those companies, but he does draw a paycheck. I can assure you he has never done any of the work OF the companies he was employed by either. It's always been in a "how to maximize profits by gutting the existing setup and doing something different" sort of a position.
When they need some liquid assets (cash) they will take it out and pay a 15% capital gains tax or they will run it through another tax shelter (like off-shore accounts). I have known some to pay each other directly in non-liquid assets (trade a ton of stock in something for real-estate, no one made "income" that way).
Most do not create jobs, instead they use their personal income to steam-roll gathering more personal wealth. They buy holdings, stakes, yachts, real estate, and other assets.
Unless you are part of the 1% you cannot adequately defend the 1% as you apparently do NOT have any idea how simplistic your life becomes when you stop living on your paycheck and instead live on your dividends from your existing assets (which are further increasing in value on their own over time). This is exactly why many of the top earners have said, point blank, "Go ahead and tax me more, I can take it!", because you know what happens? They pay their additional on the taxable direct income (which frequently is a fraction of their total assets gained / year) and it still doesn't matter to them because most of their big assets and holdings are tied up in real property, stocks, bonds, etc.
Just let me ask you how many jobs it creates if you buy 100,000 shares of stock in a company outside of it's IPO. How many does it create when you sell them?
Simple answer: none, other than hiring a stock broker. But you CAN live on the dividends of those shares (depending on the company) and you can make a killing if you keep moving your stock holdings around in the market.
The extremely wealthy really don't tend to invest in human capital that much, it's not reliable enough ROI.
Unfortunately they (house republicans) also wanted to trim 200,000+ jobs from the public sector, reduce unemployment benefits, and a bunch of other such nonsense. This being the first tax break they chose to harp about how we are going to pay for it after all. There are a lot more details to the house bill for 12 months which you seem to have excluded from the account.
We can always start with the fact that the bush tax cuts are passed through without payment for them, but when it comes time to renew the tax "holiday", then by god we must pay for this somehow!!!
And you can't say that this has anything to do with the pipeline in the first place. Both the democrats and the president agreed to that stipulation in both existing forms of the bills (2 and 12 month) so your point is moot on that.
Why, what is your theory? The only reason that page even exists is because I have to host the Google validation page to show ownership of my domain (Google Apps) and didn't have anything else interesting to put up on the site.
I'm going to laugh if you think it's an old age / generational thing too, but I am curious.
I have a homepage, and it's only 4.92Kb. Granted it is the "It Works!" page for CentOS which has all of the other text and icons and such but who needs more than that? Do people really have personalized home pages now that Facebook came about (other than some hobbyists or professionals who run a side business)?
I wonder what the average "Facebook" homepage size is... since that is what most people will be seeing regularly.
That's an amazing photo. And just seeing the stars in the background makes me really jealous (I'm in a suburb of a very large city, so I can barely see the major constellations even). Light Pollution for the loss.
It's disheartening that most of the first posters are all trolls wondering why we would ever need this or are just trying to get cheap jabs in on a site for nerds. If you don't like the science behind it (climate sciences), or you don't like the technology behind it (computing systems), then why come here to comment?
Personally, I don't put much stock in the climate modeling capabilities of it just because that is not my area of study or interest. But having another large supercomputer with interconnects running at this speed is pretty cool.
I've worked at a company that had 8 of these 10Gb waves worth of bandwidth between Chicago and NY (and at an extremely low latency), now THAT was fun! On the other hand, the prisms and optics you need in order to separate out the lightwaves were hideously expensive:)
Slashdot Mirror
Name one computer that comes from the factory with the necessary software to intercept and record unencrypted traffic from an open Wi-Fi? Anybody who wishes to intercept and record such Information from an open wireless network, must obtain special software for the purpose. This is easy enough to do, but such software does not come standard with any computer that I know of.
How about Mac OSX laptops which ship with tcpdump by default? I don't think you should argue from a point of ignorance. Just because you don't know something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3994
Only a person with a nefarious desire to eavesdrop would go to such effort.
Well, I must be pretty nefarious for having diagnostic tools like that on all of the machines I own then. I should preemptively turn myself into the authorities before I accidentally capture innocent packets.
- Toast
In a place where there is more than one ballot box per polling station would be my guess.
- Toast
Posting in reply to my own post... Bad form, I know. Just a couple of details since this is something which personally interest me...
Considering I get about 45mpg on my 2006, averaged over 600 miles driving around Chicagoland, on regular diesel (low of 35 in bad traffic and a high of around 52 on the freeway) losing 5mpg is a trade I would be willing to make to switch off of diesel and onto biodiesel (100%)... Now if only I could just pump it into my tank at the gas station instead of having to procure and clean my own from fry oil...
Many of the restaurant chains or their suppliers are now taking back used fry oil because they realized they could do the same thing as the guys at home and use it in their fleet trucks to reduce costs. This relatively recent development has made it harder to self-produce. And some jurisdictions don't like it because they do not collect road-use type taxes on fuel you produce yourself.
- Toast
Emission production as you state it is only a problem on a local level where the emissions are most concentrated (dense cities). Even electric cars will have emissions (either in production or at whatever plant is making the electricity for it). It's the part about digging up materials which have been locked underground for millions of years and then releasing those emissions into the atmosphere that is the global problem. If all of the energy and consumables your vehicle used during it's entire lifetime (including manufacture) were harvested from plants or otherwise scraped off of the surface of the biosphere instead of from within the ground you would essentially be close to net-neutral impact on the planet as far as emissions are concerned (not that there is no impact, it would just be ridiculously low impact).
Biodiesel (as usable in my VW Jetta) is only a little less efficient than petrol / oil based diesel. Mileage is about 5mpg lower or so, but you have to make sure the biodiesel is clean of other contaminants which can be a bit laborious depending on the original source. Of course most people I am aware of will typically use an 85/15 blend for better performance (15% regular diesel).
As far as emissions go, I don't think it's too much different but I don't know much about that. I guess it would entirely depend on how "clean" and viable the input is.
In any case, if we can turn something which truly does not have a better use other than to be cleaned (at great expense) and sent back into the biome into a usable fuel at less expense I fully support research into it. It seems to be much smarter than ethanol where suddenly the price of fuel becomes linked to the price of food. We honestly don't currently have a better use for human sewage anyways considering it is not considered fit for fertilizer either. Besides, if this comes to America just think of how much fatty acids are already present in the McSewage, or how we could just re-introduce Olean oil if we needed to increase production (how's that for a disgusting thought?).
- Toast
Break her expectations and that might be a possible outcome. Find yourself a woman without expectations of some fantasy wedding they have been dreaming up based on a Disney movie they saw in their childhood and you are golden.
Choosing to marry a woman expecting a fantasy wedding, not communicating fully about expectations before hand, and then breaking her expectations is your fault three times over (at least).
- Toast
Congratulations! I also was married last weekend. I got lucky and found a wife who basically was not interested in the designer / Disney / fairytale wedding either. She only wanted a 1/3 karat single stone engagement ring and 1/3 karat total wedding band (around $1000 for both) for "practicality" reasons. I spent less than a grand on the wedding and reception and that included booking all of our nuclear families (and their spouses / kids), and a couple of close friends in hotels for 2 days (8 rooms) since most of them had to drive for about 6-7 hours to get to us from out of state. She picked up a skirt at Kohl's for $80 which made a perfect wedding dress (looked the part too) and we had a nice BBQ at a local forest preserve afterwards ($45 park reservation + $250 in food and charcoal). We definitely had the means by which to spend more money on this whole affair but neither of us felt we needed to (I asked her what she wanted first before offering my opinion). Both of us couldn't be happier about our decision as our financial life was not disrupted by any of this (total cost ~$2,000 split over multiple months). And that was for doing everything in Chicagoland, not in the sticks somewhere.
So yeah, find yourself a bride who doesn't feel that the expense of the wedding is the more important part over the experience of it. Weddings are not supposed to be a celebration of how fast or how much debt you can rack up throwing a party, they are supposed to be fundamentally more important than that. Besides, your lives will likely have other big purchases not too far down the road which would be a better use of capital (house, cars, children, etc). Find a worthwhile bride as the parent poster pointed out.
- Toast
However, they do tend to post their reasoning and references behind their assertions... And that is a damn sight better than blind assertions or having to choose faith from authority. Sometimes the judges (being human which also means being biased, low-information, lazy, sick, impatient, etc at times) are indeed wrong or performing poorly. Once they put on the black robe they don't become perfect after all.
I've been impressed with the number of times I would normally have to do a [citation needed] but been pleasantly surprised at the fact that they took the time to dig up old exhibits, get other opinions from lawyers and specialists, list the relevant court documents directly from PACER or otherwise expand on the logic behind their reasoning. It's a very technical discussion of very complicated issues which is oddly and refreshingly accessible to even a lay-person who is not trained in lawyer-fu and doesn't speak legaleze. I would go so far as to assert that if politicians were required to reference all of their assertions at least as well as Groklaw references and explains theirs then politics would be a dead and unnecessary art after a couple of straight forward debates (barring incomprehensible idiots amongst the population who would cut off their nose to spite their face).
To use an example; I could assert that Romney frequently tends to come off as awkward and stiff under public pressure whereas Obama still tends to come off as collected and calm under the same. Some people would disagree with me because of a variety of reasons possibly including that they have political reasons not to like Obama or to speak in favor of Romney. However, a reader asserting bias in my observation is basically showing the bias of the reader themselves. My statements can be evaluated on their face and I could source plenty of incidents of this happening. So, is my assertion fundamentally an opinion at this point? Yes. An opinion which can be backed by examples? Yes. Biased? Not really. Partisan? No.
Groklaw explaining court proceedings works like that, and they do post their opinions and their relevant references inline in the same pieces. You also have access to the raw documents yourself and are free to draw your own conclusions because you have the same information available to you as they do. But you also have to think a little on how well you believe yourself to understand the matters at hand better than they do.
Completely partisan analysis as you assert implies they are hiding, misrepresenting, or otherwise masking information which I have seen no evidence to support. Care to provide examples? I haven't seen any incidence of them failing to back or retract potentially controversial assertions.
- Toast
No, an IOC order should resolve to either filled, partially filled (with the rest pending fill or cancelled), or fully cancelled within a second at most. Any longer than this and you really need to call the exchange to find out what happened or to have them remove the order from the matching engine.
Most of the time, with IOC orders, if you get filled after more than 4-5 seconds you can rightfully expect the exchange to bust those fills since that isn't really immediate or cancelled.
The amount of time you wait before calling the exchange to cancel the order directly impacts your options for resolutions later.
If you don't call about a missing order for 2 hours then you are liable for that 2 hour window. If you call immediately but they can't fix your order for 2 hours they are responsible for it (most of the time).
This is mostly about FIX and not OUCH protocols (but IIRC they work the same or similarly for this purpose):
The TCP sequence number isn't related at all in these streams to the order ID. There actually is a separate sequence number which tracks the fix protocol stream to make sure all of the messages were received and got parsed, and the order id is only to make sure none of the orders get duplicated and control messages (cancels, fills, etc.) are attributed to the right order. The order ID doesn't track missing orders AT ALL or make sure your order isn't floating in space somewhere. You can have multiple orders pending through one session at a time with wildly different ClOrderID's. For instance, you could have orders with ID's "jimbob", "timbob", "whopee", and "1xa3vr47pt2" all sent into the exchange through one session at once. Start sending "new order" fix messages with new sequences and old client order ID's and you will just get rejects for those messages. Start sending old sequence numbers with the resend flag set (closer to protocol) and you are likely to cause a sequence number reset message with the exchange (which can screw the pooch on your session unless you wrote to spec EXACTLY).
If you increment the sequence number without changing the client order ID you are then sending a NEW order with the same order ID and you will likely receive an order reject message from the exchange for the resent order (confused yet?). Doing this is an easy way to confuse your own state tracking unless you are very prudent in how you parse the protocol messages since you will receive a reject message with the orderid of BOTH of your orders, but the reject will be on a specific sequence number to tell you which particular message was rejected. If you don't take sequence number into account while tracking state then you will close out a VALID AND PENDING order on your system (but not the exchange) because you tried being a smart butterfly and sent it in twice... (Yes, I've seen this happen)
Using the resend flag on a message with an incremented sequence number is a really easy way to get your session disconnected from the exchange unless you have built a rather robust fix processor on your side and you have thoroughly tested this with the exchange during certification.
In any case, if your fix messaging is keeping sequences appropriately with the exchange (which it likely was during this issue between NSDQ and UBS), attempting to do ANYTHING with the orderID other than cancel it is a really easy way to screw yourself... Resending orderid's in a fast / repeat fashion is a really easy way to find a race condition bug in the matching engine or your own fix parser and screw yourself...
Unless of course you count the 896 GPU cores per GPU node ( 448 cores per card, x2 per box, x144 boxes, for a cool 129,024 GPU cores).
Yeah, token GPU work... Seems to me like they appropriately sized the compute capabilities of what could be accellerated by cuda rather appropriately considering it's only a specific set of operations which can be accelerated by it in the first place.
Take a look at what gets accelerated by BOINC projects on NVIDIA / ATI GPU cores. Some projects cannot be sped up at all by CUDA or OpenCL, others like PrimeGrid (some sub-projects) are accelerated heavily by it (20x+ speedup over CPU IIRC). It all depends on the specific work-load involved and the family of cards chosen.
- Toast
I stand by my assertion that no millionaire who is doing anything remotely half smart will pay %35 on their gross income for the year (reported and non-reported).
They will pay the %35 on their salary, (lets say 200K in your example) and then they will only pay 15% in capital gains on the ROI. Lets say they had the 1 million invested in growth investments which accrue, lets say for example, 85K during the year.
So they pay 70,000 (35%) on the salary and 12750K (15%) on the investments (assuming they withdraw the full gains for some stupid reason)
So they had an income of 285,000 - 82,750 (income tax + capital gains) = 202,250 net
If everything was 35% it is 285,000 - 99,750 (everything counting as income) = 185,250 net
So that is 17,000 extra cash in their pocket since they get it at the cheaper capital gains rate... Any questions on how millionaires can get away with less than 35% tax rate on income?
Smart people with some breathing room in their budget roll that 17,000 back into their investment portfolio before even taking it out to avoid paying tax on it until it has worked for them for quite some time. Same reason people take stock options instead of salary and the like, they defer the tax payment on it until it has done more work for them then it was worth in the first place. People without a bankroll cannot afford to part with enough money for long enough to do this same activity (except for the comparably slower growth 401K type accounts) and a much higher percentage of their REAL income goes immediately towards taxes which they cannot offset or skirt as they need the cash immediately to live off of.
So yes, you would be stupid to pay the full %35 on your income when you have a few million dollars to your name, and the more money you have the less you pay on its income. At the same time, if you are still looking for a pay raise in raw salary after you are making 1 mil a year, you really should consider alternative compensation options, spend less on your extravagant lifestyle, or just suck it up and realize that you didn't make your fortunes all by your lonesome in your own little bubble separate from the rest of your fellow Americans.
You can argue the implications of what this system does to income disparity and whatnot on whatever grounds you like, but you will not convince me that people in the %1 pay more in taxes as a percentage of their gross income. It has been the subject of jokes and many a laughing conversation about how they find the newest way to make money without paying taxes on it that have been had in my general vicinity.
- Toast
Didn't notice your example of 200K in a 401K either,, let that be your safe funds, diversify the rest into higher risk and more opportunistic investments. If you aren't getting at least $40,000 improvement on your investments in a year you aren't even beating inflation and your investment strategy sucks.
Honestly, if you invest into growth investments you can shoot for $50,000+ increase in worth annually starting with $1million right now, risk a little more (with some personal involvement instead of passing it off to a fund) and you can potentially make much, much better returns.
- Toast
Millionaire decides to ignore tax breaks and rules designed to work in his favor and decides to pay what people a few income brackets lower cannot afford to skirt, complains about the effective tax rate everyone else has to pay without a choice. News at 11.
Now if only he could convince the rest of the millionaires to do that and the tax rates could drop. I kid, I kid, but really, about 1/2 of my income evaporates before I get to it as well, and I can't afford to roll my income over and over to get around those pesky taxes. So cry me a river.
I'm not in favor of the system as it is setup for the millionaires and I personally believe there are many flaws in the tax policy, but in raw terms people who make a million dollars and pay %35 income taxes are STILL doing it wrong from the perspective of accruing wealth.
This system is NOT balanced between your forced obligations as a person making 200K and a person making 1 Million, there is a huge difference between those. One can easily skirt the taxes and the other cannot.
- Toast
First of all, Obama's tax had nothing to do with people worth a million dollars. It's people making an income worth that much in a year.
Second of all, on a 200K salary I'm not quite sure how you would both get a 500K home and 250K in cars without being an idiot up to your eyeballs in debt, but lets assume (somehow) that they have paid for all of that in cash and do not have "debt" attached currently (maybe they had a one time lottery winning or something?). You are still doing it wrong.
The parts they are doing stupid is having 250K in cars and 50K in a regular bank account and so much money tied up in a paid-off mortgage as compared to income. The cars tend to depreciate or will accrue value very slowly, and the 50K sitting in a bank account will do nothing of use. The house is nice, but having 1/2 of your net worth (and two and a half years of gross income) tied up in a single home is a very high risk stra..er.... lack of strategy. It would make sense to have a mortgage on the home, and spend a large portion of the 500K on something with higher returns to be honest. Mortgage interest rates right now are really low (lower tan investment returns really).
In other words, if your net value is 1 Million and you have all but 50K tied up in one house and cars, you have not done your due diligence in spreading out your exposure (diversifying your funds) and you definitely are not having your money work for you. Congratulations, you have just sunk all of your money in slow or no growth places.
Also, at 200K salary you would only qualify as a millionaire if you saved more than 5 years worth of salary, so you can see how this doesn't quite put you into the same league as the people making 1 million annually or have 2-3million in income investments. Hell, you are barely just getting a chance to play in the sandbox. However, if you continue doing this and putting your money in smart places instead of one house and a bunch of cars you can double or triple your net worth every few years. Obviously, you have to lead a life where you don't spend money on stupid shit like you're a millionaire though.
Honestly if you have a net worth of 1 million dollars and an annual income of 200K, you should limit yourself to a 350K or so house (on 15 or 20 year mortgage), 2 cars at ~40K or so at most (with a loan or lease to taste), pickup an income property or two or three (home rentals are smart bets with so many people foreclosed on, and the renters pay your mortgage i.e. they pay to increase your equity in the property).
Do you see where I am going with this? Invest your money into things which return money faster than inflation and you can eventually play with the big boys. Also, this person worth a million dollars with a 200K salary is probably not making any jobs. If you spend money like this I don't see how you would run a business.
- Toast
You missed the point.
Once someone has a few million they do not pay %35 income tax (unless they are pretty stupid), they do not struggle to meet any burden related to paying the taxes they do have.
And if you consider hiring a wealth management firm to invest your money to be "work". Or you think $5 million to be hard to come by for the people who already have cash... I might suggest taking a look at what exactly a private equity firm is and does.
Bankrolling is not a hard game compared to working all of your life, it's just a game that has a high barrier to entry.
- Toast
No, I'm not assuming that. What I'm saying is that once you have a few million dollars, the taxable wages you earn becomes a pittance compared to the money you "make" via other means (which is taxed at less than 1/2 of the income tax).
You should never see someone who has a million dollars (or two) in the bank paying the full %35 on the increases to their net worth annually. Money begets more money, and if you have none you don't get to enjoy that fact. And if you can't make more money off of your capital gains on 5 million dollars than you draw annually in salary you are doing something else incredibly (INCREDIBLY) stupid. Try taking less salary and more stock options for instance.
If they are paying %35 on all increases in capital they accrue during the course of a year (or more than ~%15-20 anyways) they are doing something severely stupid with their money.
- Toast
As you stated charities never adequately meet mass demand (they can't typically afford to stockpile any resources). Governments will never reach every person and smallest need (too blunt of an instrument). Let the government do the heavy lifting on the basics and let the charities meet the needs of those who would otherwise fall through the cracks or for those who has special needs.
- Toast
I know it's bad form to post a reply to your own post but here is a little thought experiment:
Given $5 million tax-free in the initial state (directly invested into non-liquid funds) or so I could set myself (or anyone else for that matter) up in such a setup as to be able to exist off of nothing but the capital gains and asset improvements so long as they acted like they made the median household income ($40-50k) as opposed to living like a millionaire. Even if you could never ever touch the original $5 million. In addition to that, you would have a nominal tax rate of 15% on any money you withdrew from your assets, and that is only if you don't do asset swaps for the things you want.
That without working another day in your life.
- Toast
And pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. First they fall into the highest tax bracket of 35% then pay AMT on top of that, plus capital gains on anything else.
You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax. They would have to be completely ignorant and stupid about how to handle money.
I work in the financial industry surrounded by people IN that income bracket. What they do is transfer funds or take their income directly into non-liquid (non-cash) capital like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real-estate, stock ownership whatever. Then they roll their cash over, and over, and over again by transferring it between these assets when they are performing well. This increases the total assets they own without it showing up on their "income" sheet. They bankroll money generating schemes and occasionally start small businesses (mostly geared around how to make themselves more money), but rarely do they start something like a public service industry or a manufacturing firm fresh. They would more likely buy an existing company, layoff 1/2 of the staff, reduce worker pay, "increase productivity", offshore any software development, etc. and then sell their stakes in the company (frequently in exchange for other non-cash assets). This is exactly how Romney has made his money and is exactly where he holds his cash (assets within other companies). He is living off of the dividends payed to him for this sort of work to this day. He no longer "works" for those companies, but he does draw a paycheck. I can assure you he has never done any of the work OF the companies he was employed by either. It's always been in a "how to maximize profits by gutting the existing setup and doing something different" sort of a position.
When they need some liquid assets (cash) they will take it out and pay a 15% capital gains tax or they will run it through another tax shelter (like off-shore accounts). I have known some to pay each other directly in non-liquid assets (trade a ton of stock in something for real-estate, no one made "income" that way).
Most do not create jobs, instead they use their personal income to steam-roll gathering more personal wealth. They buy holdings, stakes, yachts, real estate, and other assets.
Unless you are part of the 1% you cannot adequately defend the 1% as you apparently do NOT have any idea how simplistic your life becomes when you stop living on your paycheck and instead live on your dividends from your existing assets (which are further increasing in value on their own over time). This is exactly why many of the top earners have said, point blank, "Go ahead and tax me more, I can take it!", because you know what happens? They pay their additional on the taxable direct income (which frequently is a fraction of their total assets gained / year) and it still doesn't matter to them because most of their big assets and holdings are tied up in real property, stocks, bonds, etc.
Just let me ask you how many jobs it creates if you buy 100,000 shares of stock in a company outside of it's IPO. How many does it create when you sell them?
Simple answer: none, other than hiring a stock broker. But you CAN live on the dividends of those shares (depending on the company) and you can make a killing if you keep moving your stock holdings around in the market.
The extremely wealthy really don't tend to invest in human capital that much, it's not reliable enough ROI.
- Toast
Unfortunately they (house republicans) also wanted to trim 200,000+ jobs from the public sector, reduce unemployment benefits, and a bunch of other such nonsense. This being the first tax break they chose to harp about how we are going to pay for it after all. There are a lot more details to the house bill for 12 months which you seem to have excluded from the account.
We can always start with the fact that the bush tax cuts are passed through without payment for them, but when it comes time to renew the tax "holiday", then by god we must pay for this somehow!!!
And you can't say that this has anything to do with the pipeline in the first place. Both the democrats and the president agreed to that stipulation in both existing forms of the bills (2 and 12 month) so your point is moot on that.
- Toast
Why, what is your theory? The only reason that page even exists is because I have to host the Google validation page to show ownership of my domain (Google Apps) and didn't have anything else interesting to put up on the site.
I'm going to laugh if you think it's an old age / generational thing too, but I am curious.
- Toast
I have a homepage, and it's only 4.92Kb. Granted it is the "It Works!" page for CentOS which has all of the other text and icons and such but who needs more than that? Do people really have personalized home pages now that Facebook came about (other than some hobbyists or professionals who run a side business)?
I wonder what the average "Facebook" homepage size is... since that is what most people will be seeing regularly.
- Toast
That's an amazing photo. And just seeing the stars in the background makes me really jealous (I'm in a suburb of a very large city, so I can barely see the major constellations even). Light Pollution for the loss.
- Toast
It's disheartening that most of the first posters are all trolls wondering why we would ever need this or are just trying to get cheap jabs in on a site for nerds. If you don't like the science behind it (climate sciences), or you don't like the technology behind it (computing systems), then why come here to comment?
Personally, I don't put much stock in the climate modeling capabilities of it just because that is not my area of study or interest. But having another large supercomputer with interconnects running at this speed is pretty cool.
I've worked at a company that had 8 of these 10Gb waves worth of bandwidth between Chicago and NY (and at an extremely low latency), now THAT was fun! On the other hand, the prisms and optics you need in order to separate out the lightwaves were hideously expensive :)
- Toast
Practically EVERY WEEK, & for YEARS now? Yes - You see a NEW "security bug" turning up on ANDROID, a Linux variant!
[Citation Needed]
Yes, I know... Don't feed the trolls and all of that...
- Toast