Clearly this is an automated process. No one at Google has done research to determine who you have dated. It is possible that your parent, or friend or neighbor has done searches about both of them.
For example, an old friend may be curious if you are married so they search for you and your old GF names to see if you have a wedding website. Then by talking to a mutual friend at a later date they get your new girlfriends name and do a search for your new girlfriend.
If I understand what you're saying then despite the decent amount of info about each of us online (I'm a technical author, my girlfriend is a well-known blogger, and my ex does freelance writing for numerous periodicals), the relatively low-volume and infrequent queries that some people are making and that produce no search results are allowing Google to establish the connection?
Yes, the title on this post was a bit facetious, I don't think Google is actually cataloging my girlfriends, but I still don't buy your explanation. There is so much more info out there on each of us, and so many easier and better connections to make, that I am left to suspect that Google is not using the method you described to connect us because it is weaker than other possible connections.
Worse, even if I did accept infrequent GET requests to a search engine as an explanation for Google's connecting the names on the Wonder Wheel, I don't take it as a justification of that act. If a search engine is okay with drawing and publishing connections from just a few searches made, than wow is that a loop hole for fairly private information (especially about lesser-known people) to get out.
Interesting rant, however you have not explained why you think Union Teachers are better than non union teachers at educating children? Tax payers pay taxes so that children in their communities get a good education. Why would tax payers pay a teacher 80k a year when there are qualified unemployeed people willing to do the job at 40k.
The narrative used to be that teachers were underpaid. Now, because the states are broke and property tax revenues are lower, we're trying to squeeze teachers by paying less and making them work more hours ... and still get kids to do better in school. Just not sure it works that way.
I don't have any concrete facts on why unionized teachers are better, but they're paid more, have better benefits, legal protections... so maybe that makes them more motivated.
No, more motivated would involve having a risk of losing the benefits if you don't teach well. Rewarding... well.. nothing, simply for the sake of rewarding breeds complacency and apathy, not motivation.
I'm extremely privacy-sensitive and nothing they've done has come close to shaking me off as a customer. Key detail about my use of Facebook: I don't publish things on Facebook that I'm concerned about, and I don't use it for work social networking.
Facebook does not sell private data. It never has. In fact, if Facebook's evil plan were to someday start selling private data, encouraging users to make their accounts more open would make this plan less effective: you can't sell public data.
By private I mean when I upload a picture and set the privacy to "only Bob" It makes me think that Bob is the only person who has access to this picture.
The words you typed were "sell private data." It is an inflammatory phrasing, that evokes clandestine exchanges of cash for information that users are assured is private. Since you apparently know it's bogus, please do your part in keeping discussions reasonable and stop spreading it.
FB will get a share of ad revenue from a 3rd party application that Bob installs. That application will have access to my picture that I set to "only Bob".
You can blame Bob for being the middle man, or me for not reading the fine print in the privacy policy, but at the end of the day FB is making money from "selling my private data"
Front-Running is currently a legal tactic in trading. GS seems to be very efficient at it. And the 1/8th point higher you have to pay when you buy a stock isn't that much anyways.
This comment and the upvotes demonstrate the problems with financial stuff in this forum.
Go to the wikipedia page for front-running. The first sentence says that it's illegal. The first sentence. And indeed it is. Thus, it's quite a claim to say that GS make money from it.
Front running your client's trades is completely illegal. Front running on an exchange is not even possible unless you hack the exchange computers (also illegal). The first person to place an order at a given price on a given exchange wins.
The only sort of front running which is legal is guessing ahead of time what a third party might do and placing orders before they actually do it. I.e., you might guess that Apple plans to buy Yahoo and buy Yahoo shares in anticipation of this event. Do you have evidence GS has done this?
While front running may be illegal it seems that is possible to do front running if you’re properly placed in the stock exchanges. Max Keiser and Hellen Brown discuss this in the video [1] regarding how this can be done by “specialist brokers.”
Your second link has nothing to do with front running. Your first link just reveals Hellen Brown is full of crap.
In the old days, market makers could potentially front run by physically ignoring the proper market ordering (i.e., in a physical trading pit), perhaps when the broker ahead of them in the queue is distracted with another trade. This is completely impossible in an electronic exchange. There is no "front run this trade" message in either FIX or OUCH (the wire protocols used for trading).
There is more than one exchange. If you see a Bid of 10$ come up on the NYSE you can put in a bid of 9.99 on another exchange and if that order gets filled you can then turn around and try to match that bid of $10 on the NYSE if you are fast enough.
The bid of 9.99 will NOT get filled before the bid of 10, except under very special circumstances, even on separate exchanges. The exchange with the lower bid is required to route the trade to the exchange with the higher bid as a result of RegNMS.
The only time this rule fails to apply is under extremely high latency scenarios. For example, last thurs when nasdaq left the machines on but NYSE switched to human matching, RegNMS was suspended.
Intercepting flash orders is front running. I don't see how you could even be confused about this issue. That is why the SEC wants to ban it, and some exchanges have removed the feature. This corrupt business practice creates artificial information disparity which wouldn't normally exist.
I'm undecided about whether I think front running is fair
This is a red flag that no one here should be asking you for moral advice.
Front running: Joe wants to buy shares. I buy ahead of Joe, driving up the price, let him buy, then I sell my shares, profiting off the price delta. This costs Joe money, since he buys at a high price and sells at a lower price.
Flash trading: Joe wants to buy shares at price 10 or better and places an order on NYSE. The best ask on ARCA is 9.99, but the best ask on NYSE is 10. NYSE gives me the option of filling Joe's order at price 9.99 (rather than routing the trade to ARCA), saving Joe the cost of routing.
Flash trading and front running are just not the same thing. Flash trading only happens to traders who chose for their orders to be flashed. All flash trading does is moves the trade from ARCA to NYSE.
A flash trade gives Goldman the opportunity to fill Joe's order at the NBBO price before it is routed to another exchange. It does absolutely nothing else. The person receiving the flash is even prohibited from making offers on that security on other exchanges for a few milliseconds after receiving the flash.
This gives Goldman an advantage over other high frequency traders since it gives Goldman a higher fill rate, which is definitely unfair.
Apparently you don't. The allure behind flash trading is to avoid rule 602 in regulation NMS: you are not required to fill the order at the NBBO. You can use dark pools to fill orders.
Yes, but the order would not be filled at the dark pool price without the flash trade. Joe's order would be filled at the NBBO on another exchange (NOT the darkpool) and Joe would pay an extra routing fee.
If Joe wanted to fill the order himself on a darkpool, he would not have asked the exchange to flash his order.
Good article, I WFH and I think my peak productivity would be if I was going into the office 1-3 days a week.
One benefit to the employer he didn't mention is lower salary. I have had opportunities to move to jobs with 20% more pay but it hasn't been worth giving up the flexibility of my current job.
I don't understand why you would plug a battery charger into a USB port? How many people don't have an extra power plug, but do have a laptop that they are going to let run for hours to charge their AA batteries.
If you are on the move it can be quite handy. Instead of dragging N wall warts with you (esp. if you're traveling internationally, as the cheap ones often are 110V only), you just use your laptop as a universal power adapter.
But that's one thing. To get power out of a usb port, you don't need to install any software. And that's what blows my mind, why would you even want to install some software to run a battery charger??
To get power out of a usb port, you don't need to install
any software. And that's what blows my mind, why would
you even want to install some software to run a battery
charger??
You are right. The 5V and GND are right there. You don't need to enumerate the device at all. Just tap the power and be on your way. A lot of cheap products to that..
However, there are two reasons that you shouldn't do that, and why you need your device to actually enumerate itself on the users system.
The important reason, is to insure that the 500mA you think you have coming to you, is actually delivered. Technically, a motherboard can choose to assume you are broken, and disable the USB port, if you draw more than 100mA and haven't identified yourself as a high current device. Almost nobody actually does this, but the risk is there.
The 2nd reason is so you can place the little USB-IF logo on your product, reassuring people that your product complies with the USB specs. This logo, in the early days of USB, was very important. It's less so now. If you want it, you need to enumerate within $time (I forget the number of milliseconds) after you begin drawing power. If you don't, USB-IF doesn't like you and you can't put the logo on your product.
Both items 1 and 2 could be accomplished using just the USB controller in the USB device, with no driver needed ... But only if the USB controller lied about who it was. It would have to say, "I'm a hard disk", or "I'm a speaker". As soon as you lie, you're also not USB-IF compliant. Plus, it will look pretty unprofessional to have your battery charger show up on the hardware manifest as a hard drive. It would have been better to not enumerate at all, then to do that.
So, you need to supply a driver, if you're doing something that every OS doesn't have drivers for already, even if technically, it's not required.
So, really, this was Bill Gates fault. I knew we could lay this one on him if we dug deep enough. Windows should ship with OS drivers for USB battery chargers. Curse you Bill Gates, curse you.
Another issue is that USB ports have a pretty small power limit - 2.5 Watts, so using it as a charger is going to take significantly longer than what you plug into the wall...
You are correct, he didn't do a poll to find out what percentage of black people would only go to OKCupid after failing at those others he mentions. So basically this discussion is pointless until this poll is done.
On Digg I have noticed that the top rated comments are pretty good. There are a few top comments that are obvious rebuttals to trolls but the original troll comments are not in the top comments. I would rather not see the troll or the rebuttal comment, but I still want people to get credit for calling out the troll.
yep. The mentality is that we are in a war against terrorism, most people understand you cannot actually attack terrorism so when you say "war against terror" most people really think "war against angry foreign influenced Muslims". If someone who isn't a angry Muslim commits a crime that invokes Terror (flying planes into buildings) it isn't terrorism.
For example, an old friend may be curious if you are married so they search for you and your old GF names to see if you have a wedding website. Then by talking to a mutual friend at a later date they get your new girlfriends name and do a search for your new girlfriend.
And that is all it takes to make the connection.