Until Kim Jong Un decides to EMP the south.
Until Kim Jong Un decides to EMP the south.
Before you go for my throat, I was simply proposing a way to put the kabash on low-latency stock trading. I don't actually have a strong aversion to it, and though I'm pretty ignorant about the whole thing tend to agree with you. But if stopping the low-latency guys is your goal, it's pretty straightforward.
How will you decide on order priority within the one-second batches?
I wouldn't do it - people who do this sort of thing for a living would. If I'm just spitballing and you won't make fun of my naivety I could try to come up with some solutions. I'm not sure why FIFO wouldn't work just fine - simply fill the buffer until the next transaction window fires. It's the same system that is in place now, with larger quantum steps.
Just make the stocks trade in time-coordinated batches. The batches can still be relatively fast - even every second - just so it is slow enough to stop the stupid games with the speed of communications.
Most of the harm from ISP misbehavior is the manifestation of one of two perverse-incentive situations:
- integration of an ISP into a content-provider megacorp, leading to penalization of competitors or other perceived threats to the larger content-providing component.
- an under-competitive market situation (monopoly, duopoly, other under-four-competitors) situation, allowing ISPs to provide less than they promised or less than what is expected of "internet service" without a "vote with their feet" option for customers.
Both of these are not internet-technology issues and both are things the FCC handles poorly, and which are outside its mandate. They're better handled by such agencies as the FTC and DOJ, under antitrust and consumer fraud models, than by the FCC.
With respect to the content-provider/ISP vertical integration issue: Trump has already come out opposing the ATT/ Time-Warner merger. Additionally, the mainstream media's pile-on against his campaign has left him with no love for the "content providers". I'd be willing to bet that he'd be all for antitrust action to split up the other ISP ("content transport") / news reporting ("content generation") partnerships under the rubric of "breaking up anticompetitive vertical integration". B-)
I believe it was to confirm some of his cabinet, and yes, I'm betting Democrats wish they had that power now as the Trump cabinet picks come rolling in.
Don't smoke pop, kids.
This is my feeling as well, however I've also aways had the feeling that the situation over there in archive land may not be so professional and seems to have grown up from a basement project.
Brewster Kahle has just been awarded the Digital Preservation Coalition's first Fellowship Award tonight. The DPC and the "archive land" has more been thinking a lot more about digital preservation than you might imagine, and that community's idea of 'long term preservation' is a whole lot more rigorous than most any commercial thinking you'll encounter. They have smart people working there.
Growing up from a 'basement project' is a good description of amazon, wikimedia and a whole lot of other disruptive ventures of the last 20 years, I wouldn't hold that against anybody. That they don't have oodles of cash to ensure multi-continent distributed content is a reflection of their funding, not of their lack of forethought. That they can leverage the anti-Trump sentiment to raise money to create the Canada copy is a smart move.
If you don't think Internet Archive have much expertise in data integrity and digital preservation, then you're not really following what they're doing.
Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act?
- Servers in the US have First Amendment protection
- Servers in other countries have whatever protection - or restrictions - the other countries have.
- Moving certain data (such as encryption software) from the US to other countries may violate US export laws. (Backing up a server in the US to a server outside the US is more clearly an export than serving in the US something that was downloaded in the US.)
- Storing certain data - such as personal information, NAZI propaganda, or criticism of various governments - may be illegal in various countries.
So setting up a backup in some other country was probably perceived as more risk than leaving the data solely in the US under Obama, while the perceived risk to the data under Trump may be enough to move the volunteers to take on the extra trouble .
(If Brewster hasn't commented on this by then, I'll try to remember to ask him the next time I see him. But that's probably most of a year away...)
Is that what the kids are calling pigeon shit nowadays?
So next time someone proposes a new power for the President, ask yourself, "Would I be comfortable with Donald Trump having this power?"
We reap what we sow.
Ha, yes, the Titantic passengers didn't like water in any form
I think medical usage is supported by a much broader portion of the populace than recreational usage. I'm genuinely happy that you found something to improve your unfortunate situation.
The point of my post was only to point out that, whether it is "good" or "not good" (too binary for the real world IMHO), the policy of marijuana prohibition probably doesn't make much sense... the science doesn't scare me from my stance that it should be legal, because my expectation was not that science would prove it was "good".
IMHO, the flaw in your logic is the assumption that because pot is illegal, it is the responsibility of the people advocating for legalization to make a case. I contend that it is the opposite - the people using the power of government to change people's behavior need to be the ones making a case. If the argument they are using singles out one drug over another for no obvious reason, then I fail to see why I should be persuaded by their argument. It's basic "low hanging fruit" stuff.
I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.