The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

This sort of crap disguised as "reporting" needs to be called out.

The shipwreck that killed at least 800 migrants off the Libyan coast was caused by a mistake the captain made piloting the overcrowded vessel, Italian investigators have said.

The captain and another crew member were arrested by Italian police after a group of 27 survivors from the tragedy arrived in the Sicilian port of Catania on Monday evening.

The vessel in question was approximately 20 meters in length, or roughly 65 feet.

Eight hundred people massing (let's be conservative) 120lbs each on a 65 foot vessel?!

That's 100,000 lbs or roughly 50 tons!

Virtually any 65 foot vessel is going to be subject to capsize if 50 tons of cargo (in this case, human cargo!) shifts unexpectedly to one side or another.  Gee, you don't think that's a problem eh?

Here's the real problem: The EU gives sanctuary to these so-called "migrants" (the true name for them is illegal invaders) why they are willing to get on board a grossly overloaded vessel for such a trip in the first place.  The solution is to stop enticing them to do that sort of stupid crap.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

.... calling 911 will get the cops to you in a few minutes.

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

In other words a jackass decided he was going to start shooting people, although a motive for him doing so has yet to be disclosed.

Instead of calling 911 and hoping he was a terrible shot and couldn't actually hurt anyone this citizen drew and fired his own weapon in defense of others.  He was both more effective and probably more accurate than the cops would have been; he hit nobody but the assailant and terminated the assault, unlike cops who often shoot innocent bystanders by mistake.

More to the point he was able to stop the assault immediately, simply because he was there.

This, in short, is why everyone should be armed, all the time, openly or concealed and no damned permit should be required.

In fact the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to retain this option at all times and it is critical that we, the people demand the government respect and uphold, rather than infringe, that right.

This is simply about the fact that police cannot be everywhere all the time and when an urgent need arises to stop someone committing a lethal assault such as occurred here you do not have the luxury of waiting for law enforcement to arrive.

You, the citizen who happens to be there (and who might even be the assailant's intended victim!) are the first responder whether you like it or not.

Your only available choice is to either be an effective first responder or a victim.

Choose wisely and demand that your government respect that choice.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This is true but doesn't speak to the real issue at hand...

More small businesses are falling victim to “ransomware,” in which malicious code locks up computer files and cybercriminals demand a ransom to free them.

Mark Stefanick, president of a small Houston-based firm, Advantage Benefits Solutions, was shocked when one of his consultants suddenly found his work computer locked. Within hours, rogue computer code had spread from the consultant’s computer to the server and backup system at the firm. The code encrypted the claims information and financial data.

A ransom note popped up on the infected computer: Pay $400 within 72 hours to unlock the data.

I've seen this; in fact I have a friend's laptop here right now that has been hit by it.

The code in question is usually using RSA public-key encryption, which is effectively unbreakable.  The files are there but encrypted, and guess what -- you don't have the private key and it was never on your machine in the first place so there's no way to "find" it either.  The public key is there but is worthless; that's the point of public-key cryptography.

The ransom demand "gets" you, at least in theory, the private key and then the same code that trashed you decodes your files.  It takes a while, needless to say.

Now here's the real question: Why do the manufacturers of these operating systems allow executables to be loaded via email in the first place?  What possible legitimate use is there for such a thing?  Yes, I can see the argument for allowing downloads of software (of course), but there are ways to be reasonably protected in that environment -- at least requiring that https be used and that the certificate verify or, if it fails to, displaying a prominent and explicit warning that what you're about to do is very high risk.

But no! Instead we have manufacturers of operating systems that allow you to click on an attachment and execute it, by default.  The attackers take advantage of this and send you an email with an executable file; I've seen literal dozens get trapped in my spam filter on a daily basis before.  I'm willing to bet any number of them were full of ransomware (no, I'm not about to run one to find out either!)

I've yet to see an argument for permitting this, particularly in today's world where programs are measured in the tens or even hundreds of megabytes in size.  Email systems will typically refuse to pass messages over a couple of megabytes in size and that makes them essentially worthless for distributing legitimate software -- but it is perfect for distributing this sort of trash.

So why hasn't Microsoft, to be specific, prevented that execution path from working at all?  How about the third-party makers such as Thunderbird?  What decent legitimate reason is there to allow an executable to be sent as email, in short, when virtually every legitimate program these days exceeds the configured transport capacity of a single email message?

Would someone please use a liberal application of the infamous clue-by-four to Microsoft's head along with the others in the consumer and small-business space?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2015-04-21 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Consumer , 199 references

This story amuses me...

On Tuesday, April 21, Google is making a major update to its mobile search algorithm that will change the order in which websites are ranked when users search for something from their phone or tablet. 

The algorithm will start favoring mobile-friendly websites (ones with large text, easy-to-click links, and that resize to fit whatever screen they're viewed on) and ranking them higher in search. Websites that aren't mobile-friendly will get demoted. 


Look, mobile is reality.  I use my phone more than my desktop, simply because my phone is with me even when I'm on the throne smiley

So here's the deal -- many web sites are ridiculously stupid in how they display on small screens.  It doesn't have to be this way, but it is.  Many even go further and won't look reasonable on anything other than big 24" 1920 pixel or better monstrosities on desktops, which is a further sin.

Google sells ads.  Ads only are worth money to advertisers if you see them.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense that Google would pay attention to whether your site pays any attention at all to mobile usability.

Yes, this means no flash.  It means using viewport.  It means paying attention to the sizing and placement of the elements on your page and for many pages it means having context-sensitive displays that only load and display on mobile devices -- or those with modest display sizes.

If you don't take the time to do that why should you get the benefit of mobile users?

Just because you're a small business doesn't mean you get to be stupid without cost.

PS: The Market Ticker is mobile friendly and has been for a long simply isn't that hard.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Moore's Law is a never in fact stated principle that Gordon Moore said would guide electronics development -- that the transistor count on a chip would double every year (later updated to every two years.)

Gordon, however, never actually stated this as a law.

That's probably because he didn't fail arithmetic in middle school.

He also didn't, however, speak out and refute it.  That might be because he co-founded Intel, and believed that a chips arms race would benefit his company (he was right in that regard) and he'd be gone before the wall was hit (right again.)

Exponential functions can never continue indefinitely as physical limits eventually intrude and force cessation of the series.  Before that happens, however, costs usually get you -- so the actual "limit" that arithmetic gives us is never achieved.

In the case of transistors the physical limit is defined by the width of an atom or molecule of material; you cannot make a logic cell smaller than the physical building block of matter, so packing things more-tightly is impossible.  You can cheat by layering things (and manufacturers have) but then you run into another problem which is the dissipation of heat; since no circuit is 100% efficient and thus some of the energy it consumes must be rejected as heat and drawn away from the chip or it will melt.

But before you reach that point cost ramps out of control and makes further development non-economic.

We could learn something about this when it comes to debt and market manipulation if we bothered to, especially considering the number of people who believed that Moore's Law would never end.

Arithmetic cannot be cheated folks, and neither can physics.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Wake Up America

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.