In other words some completely off topic response that points out the original person asking the question is either bad at grammar or can't spell.
See the post underneath this one QED
illicit
"Elicit". Unless you're asking how to break the law.
The problem isn't that it cost billions, the problem is that "average" people cannot accrue the benefit of that profit, directly. And this seems unfair to the "fairness police".
The issue is, that this liquidity has already saved billions of dollars because it is liquid. Nobody is complaining about the increased efficiency of the market (liquidity is efficiency). If you want to play this game, buy the equipment to play it. There are more fundamental issues with Stock Trading IMHO, that HFT is not one of them.
... making further distribution by Sony
or their agents (i.e. YouTube, with Sony still on the hook for the money)
subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
That is an explicit claim associated with Sony Pictures Movies & Shows. To get that, Sony had to upload content to the YouTube content system saying "I own this content. Anyone matching it is in copyright violation."
This is a very important legal argument to make in court. By submitting content to the system - or to YouTube in a way that would be interpreted as being "Copyright Sony, rights reserved" by the system - Sony knowingly made a claim of ownership.
This both disparaged BlenderFoudation's title and voided their license to distribute the content, making further distribution by Sony subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
And I've heard a LOT of REALLY BAD ideas.
Most of what has gotten worse in Unix/Linux over the last couple decades has been the progressive hiding of the system admimistration mechanisms - previously built on human-readable text configuratin files - behind GUI configuration interfaces and excessive complexity. (See upstart and systemd for examples of the latter.)
Now they want to bury the kernel error messages in a QR code? That REALLY takes the cake.
I do not see why TCP and IP could not have been created as single layer.
That was one of the major divergences from other networking schemes of the time that gave TCP/IP an advantage.
IP is a lower layer than TCP. It's about getting the packet from router to router, and is as deep into the packet that core routers have to look to do their jobs. Core routers are supposed to be "as dumb as rocks", putting as little effort as practical into forwarding each packet, in order to get as many of these "hot potatoes" moved on as quickly as possible and keep the cost of the routers down (and to drop any given packet if there's any problem forwarding it).
TCP is one of several choices for the next layer up. It runs only at the endpoints of a link. It does several things, which are all about building a reliable, persistent, end-to-end connection out of the UNreliable, "best effort", IP transport mechanism. Among these things are:
- Breaking a stream up into packet-sized chunks.
- Creating reliability by hanging error detection on packets and saving a copy of the data until the far end acknowledges successful reception, retransmitting if necessary to replace lost or corrupted packets.
- Scheduling the launching of the packets so that the available bandwidth at bottlenecks is fairly divided among many TCP sessions, while as much of it is used as practical.
- Adding an out-of-band "urgent data", channel to the connection (for things like sending interrupts and control information).
Some other networking schemes of the time did this on a hop-by-hop basis, requiring much more work by the routers. TCP put it at the endpoints only.
If TCP/IP had included crypto, we'd all be using IPX now days...
The reason TCP/IP proliferated was because it was light-weight and easy to implement. Crypto would have killed that.
There would have been more resistance to adopting it, too.
As it was, there was substantial resistance among people and institutions sited outside the US, because the Internet was a DARPA project, i.e. U.S. Military. Other countries, organizations within them, and even some people in the US, were concerned about things like what the US might be building in - like interception and backdoors for espionage and sabotage - or just because "Military! Bad!". Including encryption from the then officially nonexistent, deepest secret, communications spy agency would have boosted that resistance substantially.
.... the only group I can actively imagine making use of [2nd amendment] against the government is also the group I least want to see use it against the government.
Then perhaps you should read a little history and see who has actually used privately-owned guns against their own govrernments - and what has happened when privately owned weapons were banned and confiscated.
You should also consider that privately owned guns are "used" against governments by simply being there, rather than fired.
Example: Richard Nixon is on record, during the Vietnam conflict, as having asked a think tank what would happen if the elections were canceled and being told that this would be a likely trigger for an armed uprising to overthrow him.
You should also know that there is a certain amount of posturing involved. With using nukes to prevent nuclear war via the Mutually Assured Distruction doctrine, Presidents had to put on a show of being just crazy enough to actually USE them - whether they were or not. In the case of individuals with small arms it may not be "crazy" (as in "blow up the world") - just "dedicated". But for the threat to be effective at averting conflict it must appear to be real.
Think of gun in private hands as paying an insurance premium.
"I'm atheist, and 90% the people I know" Anecdotal evidence at best. Not reasonable assumption. It may be true, but it is still not a fact. Please be reasonable.
"I know nothing about that organization
This is a "campaign" by this organization. They raised money, and stuck these signs all over the place. I find it completely hilarious that people would waste money on things that they protest does not exist. It is like saying "I'm raising money to prove Bigfoot doesn't exists."
And if you don't see the humor
"Most Atheists" - Citation needed. While it may be true, that "most Atheists" are as you say, enough of them DO care about other people's beliefs to annoy the heck out people. And until they start protesting Islam, Buddhists, Jewish
Also:
- Give him a title that would go for $40k and actual job responsibilities that would go for $130k.
- See what's on his resume and write a req that requires ALL of it and NOTHING ELSE, regardless of what the job actually entails.
They can start with the CEO's, who are the most globally uncompetitive.
With US CDOs you're not paying for work. You're paying for being politically connected. This is mainly connections to financing sources - the closer to the FED, the more financing you can get and the less you pay for it. But it's also about being able to influence governnent policy and lawmaking. There's also being able to recruit people for other executive suite positions. Then there's managing news coverage: Setting stock market expectations so you can continually exceed them, not getting smeared, getting publicity that encoruages people to buy the product rather than trash the company, and so on.
Actually running the company comes in maybe fourth or lower.
http://unitedcor.org/images/bi...
Proselytizing Atheists! It is one of the funniest things I have ever seen!
Let me know when the same group put up signs denouncing Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster (or do they believe in those things? I don't know!)
It is a movement, even if you deny it. It is a religious, same as if a Church put up a billboard saying "Believe in Jesus" is religious. Like most Atheists, they don't reason very well, even though they claim to; "United Coalition of Reason" uh huh right
You're saying requiring all cars (which the original article states) to have this is justified by the fraction of a percent that are low-visibility vehicles?
Theey are not based on reason or facts, they are based on careful interpretation of a religious text to fit your chosen point of view.
Even though the Buddhist texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, the Buddhist laity is advised to limit themselves to one wife.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/wha...
By getting married you are not just getting a wife, you are getting your whole world.
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/...
In traditional Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
A custom among the Northern Californian Native Americans*, which was unique to them, is that of half-marriage and full-marriage.In a full marriage, two kinsmen represented the future bridegroom. After agreeing on a price, in accordance with the family’s wealth and social standing, the bridegroom – usually with his father’s help – would pay the bride’s family.
http://www.weddingdetails.com/...
It appears, that your own bigotry is showing. Most societies marriage was between man and woman. In many of the others plural marriage was also allowed, but it was almost exclusively Heterosexual.
I put "gay" in quotes, because the original meaning "happy" no longer applies. And having seen my brother's friends (he was homosexual) "gay" meaning happy was laughable. Most of them were miserable sorts.
Do you not understand that there are very sound and well established, science based medical reasons why a union between close family members should be banned?
Is marriage about sex, or status in society or benefits granted by governments. The moment you decide on one, let me know. Because you don't need "marriage" for any or all of those.
With your bare hands?!?
