costard
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by costard
-
-
No, fair play to John. He's convinced me that the Japanese had an active and successful programme that developed what we would consider to be VT fuzes. Well done Japan, and well done John.
You know, they actually wouldn't have had to have hidden their R&D and manufacturing facilities all that well to keep it secret from the Allied soldiers and researchers crawling all over Nippon with absolute access to anything that took their interest. In fact, under those circumstances probably the best way to hide their successful VT programme would have been to 'hide' it in plain sight.
I recently came across an excellent example from recent history of hiding something in plain sight. Who remembers this speech from early in Bush's first term? I certainly didn't, but there it all is, laid right out in the open. Foreign wars, domestic terrorism, the whole nine yards. All clearly signalled to those who could hear the dog whistle, but meaningless to everyone else - except in hindsight.
hijack!
Jon, every month my OS updates and downloads a "Malicious Software Removal Tool". Should I be worried?
-
Morally, you're only obliged to answer truthfully about the situation if asked; you're not required to forewarn the husband. If you're uncomfortable providing the help, you should probably limit it to pointing the way to a useful lawyer, or urging a more open approach: no-one likes to be ambushed. Don't kid yourself about where you stand in the fight - take a side or get the hell out.
[my 2 cents]
-
I hate it when he does that.
-
Good to hear you werent squidged SO. Sort of...
Is the water level now permanently over the roads in that clip, or is that just temporary flooding?
-
Yeah, they even have their own town, right?
Michael
Bunyips don't live in Bunyip ya nong - they're ubiquitous. Taste a bit like chicken - if you can get those that have eaten well during drop-bear season.
-
Second that. Thanks Schrullenhaft.
-
Swim this way Gnome, and I'll set you up in a job that requires you to paddle down a river. Well, a creek anyway. True, you'll have blue balls from sitting in a puddle plant killing goodness all day, but you'll be gainfully employed, once more counted as a tax-paying worthy. Your Peng buddies will chortle and give thanks for the circumstances that see you poisoned while you work and do something you enjoy - all at the same time.
-
You're just having a bad day tankgeezer - I'm playing a game at the moment where my five M10s have accounted for four Panthers and two StuH for the loss of one of their own. I like 'em, cheap and effective.
-
Diesels generally have more torque and were inherently more reliable and robust than petrol engines. This has to do with being built stronger because of higher compression and perhaps most importantly much less electrics to go wrong.
The easiest way to get the high compression for a diesel is to have a higher stroke:bore ratio. Longer stroke gets you longer throws in the crank, which gives the engine better torque characteristics and a lower redline - which means less power. Diesels were built heavier as well, so they generally gave a lesser power:weight ratio than petrol engines.
-
No, not skimming profits. A trader can't skim profits from a customer. The customer is going to get an execution price based upon the skill of the trader and the trader is using various devices to get better prices for their customer (and thus enhancing their reputation and their own profits). The trader is "screwing" other trader's or other trader's customers by giving themselves an advantage over them. This really doesn't affect 'the little guy' too much. If you are trading 100 shares or 500 shares of something then you aren't moving the market so it's got no effect on you. It's really high rollers 'screwing' other high rollers.
Outside of the realm of the actual people doing the trades though, the people affected by this would be the holders of mutual funds or retirement funds, stuff like that. If you are a mutual fund and you are trying to get your order filled and the 'other guy' has access to the flash trading and you don't then you are operating at a disadvantage. The ones who might suffer or benefit from that are all the customers who are holding that mutual fund etc. This is why a firm like Goldman Sachs would be crying foul. I'm not sure what you would nationalize here or what positive effect you think that would have. I have to admit that remark has me scratching my head.
Given that the unit holders of mutual funds are almost entirely little guys trying to get the benefits of scale and risk spread from participation in the fund, this argument would have to be disingenuous, at best. The trader gets his reward for skill in the comission he receives for the trade - taking another bite of the cherry for his company is at least unethical: he's acting on inside information about the movement of shares. At worst, it's theft based around the idea that what the punter doesn't know won't hurt them, and none of them are smart enough to figure out what's going on anyway. The racist comparison was regrettable and I apologise for any distress caused. The last remark concerning a possible course of action open to a sovereign government in the face of such entrenched behaviour in the corporate realm is merely the cutting of the Gordian knot: put the buggers out of work and let the rest know that the behaviour is poorly regarded and will not continue. It shouldn't take too much time for the legal arguments to make their way through the court system in the US, provided there is the recognition on the part of the participants that the fabric of their society is under threat from the continuance of these practices.
-
The thought occurred to me that my explanation may not make sense to some readers, so I figured I would expand on it a bit. First a classic case of Front Running:
Let's say that Costard is a licensed broker and one of his clients is Wall Street high roller Diesel Taylor. Diesel decides that CM:N is going to be a huge hit so he decides he's going to place an order for 100,000 shares of BFC at the market (ie, he wants his order filled at whatever price he gets from the market). He calls up Costard and tells him what he wants to do. Costard figures that Diesel Taylor's order is large enough that it will drive the price up so he decides that he might as well make a little money on the side. Costard has Diesel Taylor's order in hand but before he works the order he puts out a buy order for 500 shares of BFC in his own personal brokerage account. Costard then places Diesel Taylor's trade for 100,000 shares and sure enough the price goes up. When Costard has finished with Diesel Taylor's order he then goes out and sells his 500 shares at the new higher price and pockets a nice profit. That is Front Running.
Okay, so what was apparently happening in the articles Diesel Taylor provided? Let's say that Costard is a computer genius who works at the NASDAQ exchange. He tells his boss "hey, there is a loophole in the Front Running law that exempts automatic executions, so why don't we just hold orders for a half second and start up a service whereby our special customers can see the held orders before we execute them?" His boss loves the idea and so Flash Trading is born.
Now you have two wall street high rollers - Jon S and Diesel Taylor. Jon S signed up for NASDAQ's special feed and Diesel Taylor did not. Jon S is sitting at his desk with six monitors stacked up and has his cup of coffee sitting nearby. One of those monitors has the special NASDAQ feed for upcoming orders on BFC. Diesel Taylor is sitting at his computer with four monitors stacked up with no coffee and decides to place an order for 100,000 BFC at the market. The order goes to the NASDAQ, but rather than executing the order immediately the NASDAQ holds the order for a half second and retransmits that information to Jon S's computer. Jon S then sees the order Diesel Taylor placed and Jon S decides that placing his order before Diesel Taylor's order executes would be beneficial so that's what he does. Since Jon S is on the special NASDAQ feed his order is not held but gets filled immediately. Diesel Taylor's order was held by NASDAQ and so his order gets filled after Jon S's order gets filled. So yeah, Jon S is front running, but he is doing so because the information is being given to him by NASDAQ. I suspect that the reason the NASDAQ could do that is because of the automatic order exemption in the Front Running rule. There may have been some political favors involved too since I have no doubt that the big shots running the exchanges would know the big shots at the SEC, NASD, or the other regulatory bodies.
Having said all that, it's possible that I misunderstood the articles and that I'm way out in left field on it. I have to admit that I didn't give the articles a very thorough read.
Thanks for that ASLVet. I read the commentary as the exchanges fighting it out for the right to sell the shares - the parcel going to the exchange with the highest demand (or the best software, something like that).
The bit I find puzzling is that the banks (or traders, anyway) are skimming the profits from their customers. In an industry where trust is the only measure of relative worth of the participants, it would seem to me that they are quite willing to forgo clients in the race for short term profits. So, do they know something we don't (There is no long term future for the market?) or are they just trading on their willingness to screw their clients just a little less than their opposition in order to maintain market share? Either way, I can't see them being around much longer so long as they continue in this fashion. Given their track record (they've proven themselves about as trustworthy as the Pakis and Afghanis), maybe better just to nationalise the businesses and let the rest of the market take heed of the lesson.
-
Nice find Diesel. Thanks.
-
So nothing has really changed since the Roman Empire then?
...
It seems the peasants are willing to tolerate a certain amount of it as long as their own lot continues to improve - or even a vast amount of it if their own lot improves markedly as well - "we" really don't give a rotund rodent's rectum who is ripping off the system as long as "we" are fat & happy too - bread & circuses all 'round eh what!
Well, maybe. Since 1783 there have been a number of occasions in history where the ruling class of a nation has been lined up against the wall and shot. Only the wilfully ignorant could believe that it won't happen again, given the right set of circumstances. It seems to have been the impetus for the development of the social contract of noblesse oblige, one that the masses will hold the privileged to whether or not the privileged believe it exists.
-
Seanachai, I'd take the apples but New Zealand apples are considered a biosecurity risk to Australia and we're not allowed to import them. Thanks for the offer but, appreciated.
-
Apparently Wall Street is getting jittery about the discrepancy between profit reports (positive) and consumer sentiment (negative). If they cannot understand that the discrepancy merely describes the imbalance in legislation aimed at the nation's economic development - the corporation is better represented than the consumer in the legislative outcomes of the political process -then they are hardly likely to be able to adequately assess the degree of sovereign risk they face. The pendulum will swing back, and if it takes another market collapse to bring this about it will be a savage swing indeed.
-
And I want my manual bound in Emrys hide, gold leaf for the title. Limited edition sort of thing.
-
Fair enough. I enjoy a good AAR, so I've missed out there. With the arrival of CM Normandy I think you'll see more of what you're looking for with regard to tactically sensible assaults.
I've only read Popovski's book on LRDG type operations - I agree it's hard to see how that shock of initial contact, total surprise, could be modelled (and isn't in CM). You'd have to have some sort of freeze or go-slow on the defending troops to give the effect I think. I mean, there's a battle set up and going to happen, so an attack isn't really unexpected. The CMx2 engine does a better job there too. Cheers.
-
sand digger,
I'm sorry you took my post to be denigrating your intellect - it wasn't written with that in mind.
As for initiative and surprise, these can be part of the game when you play against a human; the AI has very limited options whereas a human player can make the most of feints, covered approaches, covered arcs (for setting up ambushes and fire sacks), smoke screens...
-
geese go honk
ducks go quack
dalem is a cross-threaded wingnut.
-
Had a quick blast up and down the road on it today.Just to see any teething problems.Like i think i may have 2nd and 3rd gear arse about tit in the gear box.So it could be interesting going down for the MOT.
Yeah that drop in revs from first to second sounds a bit big. Gearboxes are fun to rebuild - once. After that it's a little bit of a chore. Good luck.
-
Gunnergoz, an excellent response and not exactly the one I was expecting either. However, I would like to focus on this bit here as rights and privileges can get to the heart of a few disagreements. I think the difference is one of perception though. Let me go through an exercise with health care. If health care is a human right in a similar way to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then that would mean that the individual can't have that right taken away from them by the state - or I suppose alternatively that the state has an obligation to provide that right to the individual depending upon where you are coming from. There is a fundamental difference between healthcare as a right and life or liberty as a right. The difference being that healthcare, by definition, is a "service" while life and liberty are not "services" but rather more akin to a state of being.
Interesting point. I would argue that our state of health is just as much a "state of being" as life or liberty. In fact, I'd argue that we understand more in the way of our state of health than in liberty. We can measure and change our state of health with the aid of protocols and instruments which are the result of a huge investment in time and ability, we can do it in a timely fashion and it has real and immediate benefits. This is probably why so much has been invested in it. This is probably why it will continue to enjoy investment so long as a society can afford it.
Some public health works are not under the mantle of Health Care. What percentage of disease occurence has been solved by the construction and maintenance of sewerage systems? How many city-size sewerage sytems have been built with capital raised as a tax on the populace? Did you know that the management of zoonoses (diseases that transfer from animal to human) accounts for something like eighty percent of the value contributed by the veterinary profession? All that pet stuff - that's the icing on the cake, the real value is in the worming and vaccination programs in domestic herds.
A service requires that another individual must provide something to you in order for you to benefit from that right, service, product, whatever. If something is a service that is being provided, does making that service a right for the recipient not infringe upon the rights of those who are required by law to provide it? In other words, doesn't the person required to provide healthcare to someone then become a slave to the state or to the person receiving the healthcare?
What happens when the state can no longer provide that service for whatever reason? For example, there are many documented cases in the UK where patients were denied cancer drugs by a government review board or some other reason. Does that not constitute the state taking away the 'rights' of the individual for the receipt of healthcare? What gives the state the authority to remove the rights of the individual for healthcare?
The same authority the state assumes when it deprives someone of the right to life. That is, every time the state's army kills an enemy combatant. The same authority the state assumes when it deprives someone of the right to liberty. This isn't an argument worth looking at.
-
More important, the California legislature more or less seems to share your view of business, which is to say, it is a source of inequality and evil, which needs to me saddled to government.
Only those businesses without political interests currently in power, surely.
I have to agree there.As I see it, demonizing and crippling business, wealth, and wealth creators isn't likely to improve our lives going forward.
It would, if you could guarantee good leadership and zero corruption. However, if you can do that, the resources are as well managed in private hands, where competition will lead to innovation and technological advancement, which leads to continuing and further growth.California is broke, more than 80 billion in debt. Taxes are high, about the highest in the nation, excepting possibly NY. At the same time, the economy is stagnant and unemployment is relatively high. And your only solutions are more of the same? Break business and get the government more involved in people's lives? Make sure the government is providing for people? I can't understand that. Putting resources in the hands of the government will not lead to a more prosperous state.
Sorry, you've lost me here - what then is a government's purpose?I'm not a big Glenn Beck watcher, but I am sure he and I would agree that sort of philosopy wasn't what this nation was founded on. The government was never designed to provide for its citizens.
Bollocks. Plain bollocks. Where good leadership is fostered by a society, that leadership provides for the care of the society. What we're seeing is the need to change some fundamentals in behaviour expressing itself in the collapse of those structures required to generate and maintain the wealth of the society: those structures have had their foundations mined to make for more superstructure. For example, where commerce and trade are reliant on the exercise of trust, modern commerce and trade holds that screwing the client, as well as the opposition and hell, why not?, suppliers too is the path to success. Where successful communication is reliant on the establishment of reliable paths of communication through the demonstration of a willingness to be honest, modern leadership practice is to lie as much as will convey the benefit (to the leadership, not the led).That's a 20th century idea, tried many times in many places, but it has always led to debt and failure, and in extreme cases poverty.It is no wonder this happening: it is the generation now coming to power that has grown up having these values demonstrated to them on a daily basis. Their own lives have been successful in those terms, it's just a little sad that the longevity of the society is stripped in the rush for short term profit.
-
The public votes for the party they want in office. The party votes for who they want as a leader and they can change that leader pretty much at any time (bait and switch?). So, the public can either vote for the party or not vote at all. I think it's a common feeling that we don't really have a say in who leads the country. I imagine that's a similar story in Oz.
Pretty much right, except for the "not vote at all" bit. That's illegal here (at federal, state and local levels what's more) and earns you a fine or worse.
Politics of fear come home to roost - once the mob is unsettled it'll take off in random directions at the merest scare. If the media is primed to make it's money from scare-mongering, you then have a recipe for very little cohesion and little capacity to achieve long term goals. It's happening all over.
-
'tis the law that is an ass. I think the lawyers would have had fun with this one (but still charged it).
Genericized trademark. The legal team has to be seen to be making all efforts to protect the trademark or lose the trademark to the public domain and the account to another team.
Are you?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Damn. I didn't want to know after all.