Yep. Microwave fade. It's inherent in ultra high wavelength transmissions. That said, we have modulation techniques today that have effective error correction, unlike back in the day when this was all done with FM and you ended up losing data when you had poor conditions. Think about how your mobile phone gets massive bandwidth and reliability out of OFDMA (LTE's downlink technology) under much worse propagation conditions in city canyons, and scale that to microwave frequencies.
That said, given the bandwidth limitations of long distance microwave technology and improvements in fiber technology over the past five years, it seems to me that this is a solution whose problem is already on the way out. NTT has fiber that can transmit 69.1 tbit/sec over a 240km distance. Out here in the West you can put towers on top of mountains to get line of sight for that long of a distance, but practically speaking you won't get line of sight for more than 100km or so in the flatlands without an enormously tall and expensive tower. The network between Chicago and NYC mentioned in the paper has towers every 70km and runs at 400mbit/sec. Clearly fiber can do that distance, and with much better bandwidth.
It annoys me to see Y2K trotted out time and time again as a non-event. It was a very big event, and by the large part it was very successfully handled.
No one who looked at the code has ever considered the programmers behind it "gods". The PostgreSQL developers for example have been complaining about it for years, including a major look at alternatives in 2011 because we hated the code's API and its license so much. However, that crappy API serves as a form of lock-in, making it harder to migrate to other libraries than it should be.
Card counting is a betting strategy that's mainly about when to play or not. Computing odds is not card counting, even though that sometimes involves counting the number of cards that satisfy some condition.
So set up a distro maintained by straight white males, for straight white males.
That site doesn't understand what card counting is. When you count cards, it changes how much you bet on a hand you haven't seen yet. You increase your bet (or enter the game altogether) only when the player odds are higher than normal.
Counting "outs", the number of cards in the desk that will improve your hand, is not what's called card counting in casino games.
People getting emotional isn't always an advantage for the computer; it's part of the complexity of playing against them. Some people will rampage where their aggressiveness ramps up after losing a hand due to luck (a bad beat). Some will bet less aggressively because they're stinging from the loss and worried about their stake. You can't just model the human opponent's patterns and expect them to be consistent.
RCG would offer him say 100:1 margin, so he'd make positions as large as $100 million, and if at any point his unrealized P&L grew to close to his $1 million they would call his position and he'd be busted out.
I'd like to live in this wonderful fantasy land where all positions can be closed out at any time with a controlled loss. I'm sure that would work out great even in the most crazy and obviously theoretical example, like maybe a flash crash where prices might even change faster than a complicated position valuation method could track.
The last time I got a margin call was after a gap up in an equities short position, so no opportunity to trade a controlled close at all. But it was fine--my bet shorting SCOX was guaranteed money, only question was how long until the stock went to $0.
And what if it turns out that the financial falsification was a rumor set off by a market manipulator to force the OP to execute his trade at an unfavorable price.
At a big firm, then they'd take that front running profit and put part of the proceeds toward lobbyists, campaign contributions, and the salaries of the former SEC officials who now work for them (after a few years of doing them favors). And then they'd budget for the hookers and blow. Sheesh, do you not know how Wall Street works at all?
I have mine set to "store apps plus recognised developers" and ask for the rest. If I run something else, I can right click and select Open..., it asks me if I'm sure and I say yes. This is a five second operation which gives me control over my options, whilst preventing unknown apps from running without my knowledge and explicit say so. This Windows one sounds pretty much the same, with the addition of your classic enterprise lock down features - it it's a corporately-owned machine, then yes the corporate should get say over what's running on it.
Imagine the kind of download-happy, click-on-everything user that we've all seen around. They would download cunningly-disguised-malware.exe and try to run it, and the OS would simply prevent them. Now true if they had admin rights they could go into preferences, set to allow everything etc. but it's all more effort and a quick realisation that something's unusual here.
Nope, I regard this as a good move. It already exists in OS X and works well - putting a similar system into Windows seems like a good idea to me.
There's a sampling bias issue if you fairly compare the site to a print encyclopedia. Encyclopedia editors have a job where they write about everything. On average, they'll have little personal connection to the articles they write. That's even part of the job description--the less biased you are, the more your writing will be judged as positive by that industry.
The universe of Wikipedia editors is self-selected. The people going to the trouble of editing.things is strongly correlated with people who have a personal interest in that subject. That's practically the recipe for getting more biased opinions than neutral ones.
If you can break something down into simple elements and that works out, the thing wasn't really complex after all. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of complexity.
Every time I try to make major improvements to articles on something I'm expert in, those edits are reverted as being original work. If it's something I actually care about, what I have to do is create a blog entry that covers the topic. Then I put the text I originally wanted into Wikipedia, citing myself. That makes it all fine.
For bonus fun, after going through this you then change the original blog entry to say something different.
You seem to think the word "like" means "mathematically equivalent". It doesn't. Please move along to some other pedantry trolling.