Re: Efficient Markets Hypothesis ...
Did you even read Tims article - he was very clear that not all versions of the EMH claim to be informationally complete.
3872 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
One flaw with the information going back to the customer. It already does in the form of a receipt.
There is nothing that the customer pays for that entitles them to the aggregate sum of all customers data.
Or to put in a privacy flavoured context. Why should my next door neighbour get to know what CD's I have bought just because he has also bought some CD's from Amazon?
hahahaaha.
@AC I think fandroid_galaxy_fan29 is still available as a nick.
Got any facts to back up that wild supposition? Its far more likely that as the biggest volume seller of Premium Android Samsungs lunch is getting eaten by mid tier androids that are almost as good. Which co-incidentally explains why nearly all the current Flagship android makers are suffering.
Use GP surgeries to co-ordinate any screening or similar program. Since they will have a full set of records there wont be a problem.
They will also be able to screen out those people who would normally come into scope but shouldn't. ie avoid sending screening letters to those already in the terminal stages of the disease.
Alternatively give up trying to flog my medical data to the private sector. Ring fence it for the NHS and public (university) research only with a punishment equal to 10 years in prison AND 10% of worldwide turnover for the person AND the company who misuses it.
Since the 10% of worldwide turnover fine is already used in simple anti-trust cases I see no reason to have anything less stringent for my personal data.
It seems clear that the snoopers charter is not going to go away having been identified by our lords and masters and their civil service puppet masters as a fundamental part of the bread and circuses needed to fight "the war on terror".
I cant help feeling as techies we are missing a trick relying on the likes of ISP's and the occasional condescension from Google and the like to push it back. Given how deep they have their hooks in the politicians its only a matter of time before they see something to be gained by allowing this legistlation to pass.
So pop quiz - what can we as techies do - that we are uniquely suited to do - to fight this in an organised manner, without necessarily having to closely align with any other protest group?
Answers in replies please......
On the hardware front at least. MS seem genuinely committed to producing good quality hardware and whilst the Surface 3 isn't to my taste I've been haunting eBay for a Surface 2 and am likely to take the plunge any day now.
Probably still silly money as a straight out tablet replacement but as an ultraportable laptop it has some legs.
Identify some of the suspected members of lizard squad, get a warrant to access their *recent (and future)* isp and phone records, *BAM* throw the book at the odious little toads.
Note to "CallMeDave" & TheMillipede all done within the remit of existing legislation.
Not withstanding the Fed's are probably working over the next "Sabu" as we speak.
According to Reuters - sweet fa
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/26/uk-oracle-shareholders-idUKKBN0KZ07K20150126
"PGGM owns 0.08 percent of Oracle's shares, according to Thomson Reuters data. It was not immediately clear how many shares Railpen holds."
On that basis they should take their money and walk if they don't like what Larry is doing.
Their FAIL - they cant claim they didn't enter in a shareholding in Oracle with their eyes wide open. Even if their motives are benign they are effectively no better than Icann. If you want to effect change at a company pony up the funds to increase your shareholding or get together with a syndicate of similarly interested parties. Otherwise STFU.
What loon thought farmers were a good set of first candidates, they must have some of the most complex financial profiles out there.
And that's without factoring in red diesel sales, badger baiting clubs and compensation payments to wounded walkers who wouldn't "get orf my laaaaannndd"
Wtf Verify is meant to do and why are they spending my money on it?
According to the blurb it seems to be outsourcing the simple aspect of logging on to a Govt portal with a user id, in favour of some nebulous identify matching guessing process run by commercial interests.
What lunatic thought that this was worth spending money on? Im usually against big Govt databases, but if the alternative is spreading my details across a whole host of commercial interested parties - give me Big Brother any day of the week.
Blurb
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify
This - tie it together with the Opportunity Cost argument above you could argue that all we have done is swapped one leisure activity for another and any gain in utility (let alone something more concrete) is marginal at best.
And that's without factoring in the fact that facebooking is an asynchronous activity that can be performed in the "quiet times" between other leisure activities.
Indeed there's probably a delicious irony that advertisers are paying twice to get our attention for less time than they previously would have. ie We skip the TV adbreak to Twitbook, then ignore their ads to concentrate on the Kitten Video or Doris's latest colostomy adventure.
I agree - my MBA has 128Gb - with my ITunes library on a Nas - there is plenty of space to run any application I need, all store my core documents AND a copy of Win 7 running over Parallels.
I have a 32gb thumbnail sized USB key sticking out the side as my "just in case" that's never been used for anything but adhoc data transfers.
Try addressing the point of the article. As a statistician would you be comfortable saying "xxxx EVER" if its within the bounds of the margins of error.
In this article that isn't the crux of what Lewis is saying.
He's saying the previous 3 increments that led to the "hottest years ever" were all well within the margins of error for his dataset - if the same is true for the NOAA and other datasets then saying "hottest ever" is a bit dubious.
Forget whether Lewis is a warmist or denier - he's saying its very disingenuous to be making such headline grabbing statements.
According to these links Beagle and Curiosity are about 4km from each other - and Curiosity's max speed is 0.14 KM/h it should take Curiosity just 28hrs at full chat to get there.
Although I'm not convinced the scale on that map is at all right -I think there are a few zeros missing off the scale which may slow Curiosity up a bit.
Olympus Mons is meant to be 600 odd KM wide.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mars-map/
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=curiosity+top+speed&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZQW5VJXTOoqA5gbUpoCICw&gws_rd=ssl
Not at all - we're saying we should test whether those tiger teams have done a good job - not assume they have, and since the threat surface is continually evolving and that State hackers would potentially have new & different insights to other professional testers it does no harm and possibly a lot of good.
Did you know that but just wanted to take a cheap shot at banks, or did you not think before commenting?
with this kind of crap endemic within Govt organisations its no wonder any techie worth their salt would slag "callmeDaves" encryption disposal proposals at every opportunity.
When you can't even rely on an organisation to admit complete malfeasance there is something majorly wrong.
Lets not forget they tried to get criminal charges raised against the committee.
Govt powers or any sort - take a leaf from Zammo's book - just say no.
Anytime this shite come up.
" “Far-reaching data collection in France would not have prevented the odious attacks in Paris. As with previous attacks, the perpetrators of the Paris attacks were already known to security authorities and had been the subject of investigations and supervision measures.
"Instead of creating an ineffective dragnet on all air passengers, security authorities should have been exchanging the data they already had on these suspects,”
Some interesting propositions. I presume the move from a Resource Extraction to a Manufacturing paradigm for Computing is still valid even taking into account the spiralling cost of FAB's?
Im basing that presumption on the fact that Tim wouldn't have made such a schoolboy error ;).
If take moore's law as a model for the computing industry as a whole, we would have Resource Extraction down near the base of the curve and then Manufacturing at the point where it starts to go exponential.
Where this becomes most interesting is that if we posit that Moores law is actually a Sigmoid (S shaped) curve then what model does the top part of the this curve correspond to? A return to the Resource extraction model, or some other model takes effect?
http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/11/its-not-exponential-its-sigmoi.html
(wishing for chin scratching icon) Jimmy Hill?
ie if the components are sourced and sold in the Far East, for delivery to the US in various oem boxen, other than FUD whats the court going to do? Put Netlist in the position of trying to shut down the big 4's server sales and see if it has the balls to try it.
A savvy SanDisk would be assessing the competition in the sector and judging how easy it is for the big 4 server vendors to jump ship. A couple of sweeteners on the side may be far less costly to buy some extra time.
afaik some of the more mobile Oil rigs just have big tanks in the "feet" that are flooded to provide stability, with only some tethers/anchors actually going down to the seabed.
One of them might be a good contender for the HMS Muskpad. although I would guess they cost a couple of orders of magnitude more than a barge with a flat deck and some station keeping thrusters.
Which may be valid if they are ultimately shooting for a pad based on land.
Surprisingly Cleggy seems the closest to getting it right. Shame some of their other policies are so whackdoodle.
From the Beeb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30673625
Mr Clegg said he backed targeted measures to identify suspected extremists and if necessary examine their communications, saying the state had always reserved the right to "steam open a letter" if it thought those behind it meant harm to others.
But he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that one element of what Mr Cameron was proposing would go much further and would involve "scooping up vast amounts of information on millions of people - children, grandparents and elderly people who do nothing more offensive than visiting gardening centre websites".
"Privacy is a qualified right. If someone wants to do us harm, we should be able to break their privacy and go after their communications," he said.
"But the snoopers' charter was not about intercepting communications.
"It was about storing a record of all your social media activity, of every website you have visited of every single individual in this country, of people who would never dream of doing anyone else any harm, would never dream of becoming a terrorist or having anything to do with extremist ideologies.
"The question we need to ask ourselves, in a free, open society as we defend our values against the abhorrent attacks we saw in Paris, is where do you draw the line?"