Or just save the money and throw successful hedge fund managers in prison. It's terribly unconstitutional, but it would save a great deal of both time and grief. If they haven't done something illegal at the present, they will eventually. Hedge funds are not typically run based upon business acument or intellect. In fact the vast majority end up losing money and going out of business as a result. It's an industry with a significant survivorship bias.
This has been going on since the 30s, it's just that now the window has shrunk from about 12 hours to mere milliseconds. Ultimately what's going on is massive organized fraud, and the individual investor ends up paying the price for it. Some exchanges still allow for investment firms to buy with full knowledge of what the price of a stock will be in a fraction of a second, which is why those firms co-locate next to the exchange, it allows them to buy with perfect precision, in effect robbing the investor that would've gotten that price.
No, the GP is correct, I think that the tax rates aren't right, but the idea is definitely sound, anybody that's trading on sub second intervals is definitely not engaged in otherwise legal behavior. The people that are doing that are trading based upon insider knowledge not available to the individual investor. And even the people trading in intervals of less than a minute are more likely to be scoundrels than people trying to correct a mistaken trade.
Apples and oranges, there was no compelling reason for Valerie Plame's identity to be leaked, even today I am not aware of any interest other than revenge or incompetence for that being leaked. OTOH some of those materials that have been released by wikileaks, presumably from PFC Manning, have been quite informative about things of real significance. And quite frankly, the man is clearly a patriot. Unlike all those folks that are looking the other way and or commiting war crimes because they were ordered to, he's provided the materials necessary to question whether or not the DoD has really been honest about various crimes committed by our service personnel at the bequest of higher ups.
Whether you'd want the death penalty or not, up until recently there were consequences for committing war crimes, and without a few people with a spine to leak materials to the press, we can't assume that the military still cares about that. And quite frankly, the military has to obey the US constitution just like other branches of the government, it's been pretty clear that all the sheeple have been willing to torture and murder innocent civilians just so that they can think they're safe.
The problem is that some of the materials he leaked clearly indicate war crimes committed by our service personnel. I realize that it's popular to pretend like it doesn't happen and that it was just a few people at abu Ghraib that were the problem, but the reality is that it's infected the chain of command, and there was no interest in investigating how it is that these crimes against humanity were committed without any intervention by the CO. In that case they only prosecuted a few low level personnel, but never the people giving the orders. That helicopter incident from a while back is a good example, it was definitely something which should have been investigated as it was quite questionable as to whether or not that was really within the relevant rules of engagement at the time.
In Nuremberg we prosecuted a lot of Nazis for following orders, it is a pox on our nation that we've decided that all of a sudden following orders is a good enough justification for looking the other way or participating in war crimes.
You sir are an idiot and a jack ass. It's no wonder this country is going down the crapper with the sort of deluded morons that post this sort of dribble.
1 DADT was at most a motivating factor, it wasn't the only one, and there were definitely plenty of criminal activities included in what he leaked.
2 is just complete bullshit, the DoD has a history of ignoring DADT and ferreting out homosexuals regardless of their discretion.
3 Again, I'd like to reiterate that you're an idiot looking to justify the government's point of view, he didn't have the expertise or the resources to troll through all that without getting caught, so he released them to somebody who had a lot more resources.
4 No, he didn't dump them to the public, he dumped them to wikileaks that redacted and then dumped them. What you're saying is factually ignorant and incredibly misleading.
No, it's not logical, this isn't equivalent. The cost of implementation goes up a lot just before a critical switch over date appears. Consultants don't become more numerous just because there's a date coming up that requires their services. Ultimately, it costs a lot of money to try and make these sorts of switches overnight, and you do pay a premium for doing so.
Just because it's an IT infrastructure does not automatically mean that they're wrong. It means that we should eye it somewhat cynically, but if you look at the way it's been up until now, I'd be surprised if they weren't right overall. Just look at all the people streaming Netflix with set top boxes and watching youtube. It doesn't take a lot of sophistication at this point to use a lot of bandwidth, whereas previously you were probably downloading torrents or OS discs.
And as long as a lot of people support that sort of piracy it will remain that way. Service plans being advertised as providing "up to" a certain amount of bandwidth with no promise of reliability in the fine print and often times a cap which prevents you from using the maximum amount of bandwidth that they're able to provide. It would be nice to have actual truth in advertising regulations in the US. The ones we have are so toothless that you pretty much have to call the FTC up and tell them you're advertising lies.
I've seen that quoted in the past, and it implies I wish I could get 10.3 mbps, around here I'm getting half that despite being in an easy to wire area, I'm within 10 miles of a IXP. There's simply no justification for the slow speed, other than Qwest is incompetent and greedy. If a city like Seattle isn't being hooked up at that rate, and we're one of the most connected cities in the country, then how on earth could we possibly be doing that well in terms of the world?
Indeed, I realize that this is/., and that/. doesn't have any editors, but this is pretty ridiculous. At least link to something that has some information if you can't be arsed to create an informative summary.
Water solubility isn't a requirement for toxicity. Hg for instance isn't water soluble, but is definitely toxic. Likewise, I wouldn't recommend drinking motor oil, because while it isn't water soluble, it's definitely toxic.
Conservativism in this respect is indistinguishable from mental illness. No matter how much evidence and no matter how reliable said evidence is, there's a substantial number of people who refuse to accept reality or pose a plausible justification for why it isn't true.
That was more or less my thought on this. This didn't seem to be so much a rolling back of the rights as a refusal to extend more rights to corporations. I don't really recall previously corporations being allowed to have personal privacy, and in fact such a notion would leave regulatory agencies in a tough place because typically 5th amendment protections would also apply as well as other places where privacy is conveyed in the constitution.
Part of the price you pay when committing a serious legal violation is forfeiting some of your rights, otherwise we couldn't have jails or prison terms at all. There are some unfortunate cases where somebody is incarcerated despite being innocent, but by and large losing some rights is necessary for the functioning of the state.
Yes, but without a constitutional amendment those new rights could be taken away without much trouble. As it is we need to pass a constitutional amendment declaring corporations to not be people. Which is a lot harder.
And in the meantime you've got a VM of dubious reliability mucking around in customer records. Sure you've probably wiped any trojans that might be infecting the machine, but it doesn't mean that you're not at an increased risk of losing a significant amount of data to an unspecified problem. Sure it does work and probably most of the time, but is it really wise to assume that it isn't a very serious problem just because you can restore the VM?
Plus if the application is that critical there should be reudundancy already or some other contingency plan to handle the time it takes to figure out what the problem is. Probably the only thing that angers employees more than a service outage is finding out that some of their work has been lost and has to be done over. Which depending upon the backup situation could be enough to kill a company.
Yes, that's damn near a worst case scenario, but I do think that those people who assume that they can just reimage the VM and be OK, need to seriously consider whether or not they've consider the full range of implications. In practice I doubt the scenario I put forward is very common.
Indeed, in all the time I've run FreeBSD I can't recall the OS ever crashing completely without cause, every once in a long while it'll panic because something goes horribly wrong, but it's not something that just happens randomly, there's always a cause. Likewise I rarely if ever see a program drop core just because, and the few applications I've seen do that have typically been a configuration error or mismatched library, and definitely not in any software that could be considered mission critical.
The other issue is that if you're not extremely careful reimaging can make things a lot worse. That might be your last chance to pull usable data off the disk, and you've just spent it on reimaging the disk. Or worse, there's a subtle RAM or HDD fault which isn't going to become obvious in the short term. Sure it should be backed up, but I know better than to assume that a given business is doing that properly. Not to mention that if you've got a problem with either RAM or the HDD you might not even notice the problem until you've already wiped the backups.
Yes, but what happens if for some reason the reimaging doesn't go well? That's really why you ought to be paying for a competent sysadmin in the first place, you don't hire them under the assumption that it's always going to work as designed, you hire them because sometimes it doesn't work. In that case it might be that some lunkhead changed configuration files on the VM and not the image or that the machine itself isn't configured correctly as a result of an error that nobody noticed in the imagine procedure. A good sysadmin has probably seen or foreseen most of the problems that can be encountered or at least has some idea where to look and whom to call.
But, if you really want to see why you need a qualified professional, I think backups are really the place to look. Sure a lot of that is point and click, but you're going to seriously regret not having somebody that knows what they're doing when you're choosing a system, implementing said system and most of all when you're needing to recover the system.
That's my thought, or more likely, require my attention to access that feature, or something less wordy. Some functions can be abused in this fashion, but are actually useful from time to time.
State laws tend to encourage that sort of bad behavior on the part of corporations. It's presumed that an individual had the opportunity to opt out and have the contract explained to his or her satisfaction. The problem is that for a lot of these things one does not have the money to contact an attorney for advice and so signs with little understanding as to the actual meaning. Which to an extent is understandable, if the contract is for phone service, one doesn't expect that the carrier will extend a larger line of credit than most credit cards without at least asking for permission.
True, but there's ways around that. Google could provide an API specifically for ads and data required for that. Which if done properly would greatly restrict what malware authors could be doing, if say they could only pull ads in through that.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just save the money and throw successful hedge fund managers in prison. It's terribly unconstitutional, but it would save a great deal of both time and grief. If they haven't done something illegal at the present, they will eventually. Hedge funds are not typically run based upon business acument or intellect. In fact the vast majority end up losing money and going out of business as a result. It's an industry with a significant survivorship bias.
This has been going on since the 30s, it's just that now the window has shrunk from about 12 hours to mere milliseconds. Ultimately what's going on is massive organized fraud, and the individual investor ends up paying the price for it. Some exchanges still allow for investment firms to buy with full knowledge of what the price of a stock will be in a fraction of a second, which is why those firms co-locate next to the exchange, it allows them to buy with perfect precision, in effect robbing the investor that would've gotten that price.
No, the GP is correct, I think that the tax rates aren't right, but the idea is definitely sound, anybody that's trading on sub second intervals is definitely not engaged in otherwise legal behavior. The people that are doing that are trading based upon insider knowledge not available to the individual investor. And even the people trading in intervals of less than a minute are more likely to be scoundrels than people trying to correct a mistaken trade.
Apples and oranges, there was no compelling reason for Valerie Plame's identity to be leaked, even today I am not aware of any interest other than revenge or incompetence for that being leaked. OTOH some of those materials that have been released by wikileaks, presumably from PFC Manning, have been quite informative about things of real significance. And quite frankly, the man is clearly a patriot. Unlike all those folks that are looking the other way and or commiting war crimes because they were ordered to, he's provided the materials necessary to question whether or not the DoD has really been honest about various crimes committed by our service personnel at the bequest of higher ups.
Whether you'd want the death penalty or not, up until recently there were consequences for committing war crimes, and without a few people with a spine to leak materials to the press, we can't assume that the military still cares about that. And quite frankly, the military has to obey the US constitution just like other branches of the government, it's been pretty clear that all the sheeple have been willing to torture and murder innocent civilians just so that they can think they're safe.
The problem is that some of the materials he leaked clearly indicate war crimes committed by our service personnel. I realize that it's popular to pretend like it doesn't happen and that it was just a few people at abu Ghraib that were the problem, but the reality is that it's infected the chain of command, and there was no interest in investigating how it is that these crimes against humanity were committed without any intervention by the CO. In that case they only prosecuted a few low level personnel, but never the people giving the orders. That helicopter incident from a while back is a good example, it was definitely something which should have been investigated as it was quite questionable as to whether or not that was really within the relevant rules of engagement at the time.
In Nuremberg we prosecuted a lot of Nazis for following orders, it is a pox on our nation that we've decided that all of a sudden following orders is a good enough justification for looking the other way or participating in war crimes.
You sir are an idiot and a jack ass. It's no wonder this country is going down the crapper with the sort of deluded morons that post this sort of dribble.
1 DADT was at most a motivating factor, it wasn't the only one, and there were definitely plenty of criminal activities included in what he leaked.
2 is just complete bullshit, the DoD has a history of ignoring DADT and ferreting out homosexuals regardless of their discretion.
3 Again, I'd like to reiterate that you're an idiot looking to justify the government's point of view, he didn't have the expertise or the resources to troll through all that without getting caught, so he released them to somebody who had a lot more resources.
4 No, he didn't dump them to the public, he dumped them to wikileaks that redacted and then dumped them. What you're saying is factually ignorant and incredibly misleading.
No, it's not logical, this isn't equivalent. The cost of implementation goes up a lot just before a critical switch over date appears. Consultants don't become more numerous just because there's a date coming up that requires their services. Ultimately, it costs a lot of money to try and make these sorts of switches overnight, and you do pay a premium for doing so.
Just because it's an IT infrastructure does not automatically mean that they're wrong. It means that we should eye it somewhat cynically, but if you look at the way it's been up until now, I'd be surprised if they weren't right overall. Just look at all the people streaming Netflix with set top boxes and watching youtube. It doesn't take a lot of sophistication at this point to use a lot of bandwidth, whereas previously you were probably downloading torrents or OS discs.
And as long as a lot of people support that sort of piracy it will remain that way. Service plans being advertised as providing "up to" a certain amount of bandwidth with no promise of reliability in the fine print and often times a cap which prevents you from using the maximum amount of bandwidth that they're able to provide. It would be nice to have actual truth in advertising regulations in the US. The ones we have are so toothless that you pretty much have to call the FTC up and tell them you're advertising lies.
I've seen that quoted in the past, and it implies I wish I could get 10.3 mbps, around here I'm getting half that despite being in an easy to wire area, I'm within 10 miles of a IXP. There's simply no justification for the slow speed, other than Qwest is incompetent and greedy. If a city like Seattle isn't being hooked up at that rate, and we're one of the most connected cities in the country, then how on earth could we possibly be doing that well in terms of the world?
Indeed, I realize that this is /., and that /. doesn't have any editors, but this is pretty ridiculous. At least link to something that has some information if you can't be arsed to create an informative summary.
No, it's going to be more like: "He really scoxed that up."
Water solubility isn't a requirement for toxicity. Hg for instance isn't water soluble, but is definitely toxic. Likewise, I wouldn't recommend drinking motor oil, because while it isn't water soluble, it's definitely toxic.
Conservativism in this respect is indistinguishable from mental illness. No matter how much evidence and no matter how reliable said evidence is, there's a substantial number of people who refuse to accept reality or pose a plausible justification for why it isn't true.
That was more or less my thought on this. This didn't seem to be so much a rolling back of the rights as a refusal to extend more rights to corporations. I don't really recall previously corporations being allowed to have personal privacy, and in fact such a notion would leave regulatory agencies in a tough place because typically 5th amendment protections would also apply as well as other places where privacy is conveyed in the constitution.
Part of the price you pay when committing a serious legal violation is forfeiting some of your rights, otherwise we couldn't have jails or prison terms at all. There are some unfortunate cases where somebody is incarcerated despite being innocent, but by and large losing some rights is necessary for the functioning of the state.
Yes, but without a constitutional amendment those new rights could be taken away without much trouble. As it is we need to pass a constitutional amendment declaring corporations to not be people. Which is a lot harder.
And in the meantime you've got a VM of dubious reliability mucking around in customer records. Sure you've probably wiped any trojans that might be infecting the machine, but it doesn't mean that you're not at an increased risk of losing a significant amount of data to an unspecified problem. Sure it does work and probably most of the time, but is it really wise to assume that it isn't a very serious problem just because you can restore the VM?
Plus if the application is that critical there should be reudundancy already or some other contingency plan to handle the time it takes to figure out what the problem is. Probably the only thing that angers employees more than a service outage is finding out that some of their work has been lost and has to be done over. Which depending upon the backup situation could be enough to kill a company.
Yes, that's damn near a worst case scenario, but I do think that those people who assume that they can just reimage the VM and be OK, need to seriously consider whether or not they've consider the full range of implications. In practice I doubt the scenario I put forward is very common.
Indeed, in all the time I've run FreeBSD I can't recall the OS ever crashing completely without cause, every once in a long while it'll panic because something goes horribly wrong, but it's not something that just happens randomly, there's always a cause. Likewise I rarely if ever see a program drop core just because, and the few applications I've seen do that have typically been a configuration error or mismatched library, and definitely not in any software that could be considered mission critical.
The other issue is that if you're not extremely careful reimaging can make things a lot worse. That might be your last chance to pull usable data off the disk, and you've just spent it on reimaging the disk. Or worse, there's a subtle RAM or HDD fault which isn't going to become obvious in the short term. Sure it should be backed up, but I know better than to assume that a given business is doing that properly. Not to mention that if you've got a problem with either RAM or the HDD you might not even notice the problem until you've already wiped the backups.
Yes, but what happens if for some reason the reimaging doesn't go well? That's really why you ought to be paying for a competent sysadmin in the first place, you don't hire them under the assumption that it's always going to work as designed, you hire them because sometimes it doesn't work. In that case it might be that some lunkhead changed configuration files on the VM and not the image or that the machine itself isn't configured correctly as a result of an error that nobody noticed in the imagine procedure. A good sysadmin has probably seen or foreseen most of the problems that can be encountered or at least has some idea where to look and whom to call.
But, if you really want to see why you need a qualified professional, I think backups are really the place to look. Sure a lot of that is point and click, but you're going to seriously regret not having somebody that knows what they're doing when you're choosing a system, implementing said system and most of all when you're needing to recover the system.
Yo, got your 16 digits right here, they're barely legal and ready to do naughty things for cash.
That's my thought, or more likely, require my attention to access that feature, or something less wordy. Some functions can be abused in this fashion, but are actually useful from time to time.
So, you're what like over the age of 10?
State laws tend to encourage that sort of bad behavior on the part of corporations. It's presumed that an individual had the opportunity to opt out and have the contract explained to his or her satisfaction. The problem is that for a lot of these things one does not have the money to contact an attorney for advice and so signs with little understanding as to the actual meaning. Which to an extent is understandable, if the contract is for phone service, one doesn't expect that the carrier will extend a larger line of credit than most credit cards without at least asking for permission.
True, but there's ways around that. Google could provide an API specifically for ads and data required for that. Which if done properly would greatly restrict what malware authors could be doing, if say they could only pull ads in through that.