Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Bad example (Score 1) 800

Yes, and helping yourself comes first. By swerving in any direction, you might give evidence for your prosecution that you had time to swerve. By not swerving, you could argue you never had time. A jury might even forgive you for being dumbstruck. Unless your blood has one in a gazillion trace of alcohol or "drugs".

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 1198

You may not be able to tell when an individual has improved enough to be safe to be let out, but you can study and implement the methods produce the greatest decrease in the rates of recidivism. And at some point we may actually be able to tell with a high degree of certainty when people are ready, it may never be a cast iron guarantee, but we can do a damn sight better than we do today[citation needed]

You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.

Comment Re: frosty piss (Score 1) 664

Agreed, except for finding productive work for prisoners without generating revenue. It should also help the prisoners who know nothing except crime - I see it as a crude "job experience".

Prisoners do get their "savings" from working in prison in my country, and that's a good idea too. Not sure if it happens in the US.

Comment Re: frosty piss (Score 1) 664

A publicly owned and run prison service would be continually seeking to reduce cost

Even when government run, it is desirable that prisons do "business". I.e. make the prisoners do some work, and earn their food , shelter and even incarceration. Reasons :

1. Keeps motivation for capital punishment down. So that public doesn't scream why should this murderer be kept alive on my money?

2. In doing nothing at all, prisoners will be unable to cope up with post-release life. Prison - management is not enough work - cooking, cleaning, prison stuff repair doesn't add up to enough work to keep all prisoners busy.

3. It's simply good money-management. There are people who can't be freed, need to be made to work, and need to be fed. Rather than giving them money to dig pits and fill them back, make them work which can be sold for money.

So there is not just the reduce cost dynamic going on here, but also increase income. Also the fact that government itself doing business is a taboo in the US.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 1198

I didn't say it will never progress. But the progress isn't in sight. And we'll know when it is, by improvement in results of willing patients.

World financial system is quite dependent on alchemy not being fruitful in the foreseeable future, but economists don't say, or even assume that it will never be fruitful. Elementary changes to atoms are possible. Temporary behavior modification of willing patients is possible.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 1198

Americans do keep convicts locked for a very long time in the hope they'll improve. Since there's no way to figure out if they have improved, convicts are set loose when "society" gets tired of waiting.

Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge. Why do you love movies so much that in order to improve them you're ready to endanger so many people?

OR your statement "until it does", amounts to locking every petty criminal indefinitely since there is no way to figure out "if it did". You might as well declare 50 states to be 50 prisons and get on with life.

Second class treatment ? Sometimes more knowledge leads to less respect for a subject. Respect for alchemy has dropped million fold in hundreds of years.

Comment Re:Not a surprise (Score 1) 303

This is the second sentence : So why should society infrastructure be modified to suit them (exclusive order types on exchanges regulated of necessity) ?

And it not only answers your question that you ask as a reply to it, but makes it unnecessary. I DO NOT think everything should benefit society, I never said so. But if society adapts for individuals, individuals better provide a much bigger benefit to society in return. I don't have patience for people who write more and read less, and I am not even sorry about it.

You don't even know how much they earned, so how can you really comment on it? Virtu Financial recently filed an S-1 to go public: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... Total revenue: $664 million. Net revenue: $182 million. Not bad, but not exactly killing it either.

I happen to know that zero multiplied with any possible profit is zero. Society benefits ZERO by people being just a bit faster than competition and cornering a market. Hence the remark of "proportion".

What are you talking about with "society infrastructure", and particularly "exchanges regulated of necessity?" What does that even mean? Did you know that NYSE, amongst many other liquidity venues, is now a publicly traded company? The exchanges have provided these order types of their own volition, this isn't an "HFT" problem, its an exchange problem if anything- they are trying to attract the HFT flow to their exchanges!

This is exactly part of what I am saying. The other part is - regulated of necessity. If NYSE in its own greed kills investor trust - NYSE also loses. Yes financial industry in the US has enough short term greed and there is not much competition from less greedy financial players currently. But it is for the good of stock exchanges themselves that there be a semblance of trustworthiness.

As for whether this new technology is benefitting anyone, I would argue this is just a luddite argument that has been made many times before whenever there has been a disruptive new technology

This is idiotic. I don't see any clarification or examples, and this is an enormous statement. Rest seems to be based on this idiotic assumption. By needing to ask "why should everything benefit society", when I didn't even say so, you have yourself admitted HFT doesn't benefit society. Disruptive new technology rarely ends up being so useless for society in general.

I am not spouting off anything- I spent the last ten years building this stuff on both the HFT and Agency side. You read a few articles, and maybe the entire Flash Boys book? Good for you. I am trying to give you the rest of the story.

And you haven't read my post so you didn't understand that I know what you are trying to tell; but you are wrong in some places which I corrected.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 1198

Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.

By the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the one who has less money overall is less guilty. It may or may not be straightforward to figure who has "less money".

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...