Counterparties

By Felix Salmon
April 4, 2011
RSN

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

SWAT team evicts grandmother trying to make mortgage payments, 7 arrested — RSN

Ai Weiwei arrested in China — Ai Weiwei

“Let us have no more willful ignorance, no more worship at the self-interested shrine of laissez-faire Know-Nothingism” — TED

“If bikes had to behave like cars in Central Park during car-free hours, they wouldn’t be allowed at all” — NYT

Standards editors on putting ethics handbooks online — Reuters, NYT

Transocean claims its “best year in safety performance” in the year of the Deepwater Horizon disaster — WSJ

Transfer your domain for $4.99 and Help Save the Elephants — NameCheap (see also)

First Paul Allen vs Bill Gates. Now Hank Paulson vs Jon Corzine. Who’s next? Tipper vs Al? — VF

Jonathan Weil vs PCAOB. No contest — Bloomberg

6 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

“With notably rare exceptions, Transocean had its best year ever in safety performance.”

Posted by ckbryant | Report as abusive

TED doesn’t have comments, so here goes -

I’m with TED, bravo! Except this part I’ll say maybe, sorta, clarify please:

“Few people of sense would suggest that we will ever understand the inner workings of the global financial markets with any level of completeness or rigor”

– How much of that has anything to do with regulation? I think TED is saying little – I wonder if it’s none.

How about just enforcing The Rule of Law? That’s not that hard at all. Oh, and not changing the laws to benefit the crooks.

Purposely trying to be opaque and inaccessible doesn’t help either. The last article I read on that was from baselinescenario re legal publishing.

Speaking of which, there’s this article http://www.hpcwire.com/news/Artificial-I ntelligence-Job-Killer-118623649.html

“One application was able to analyze 1.5 million documents for less than $100,000 — a fraction of the cost of a legal team, and performed in a fraction of the time”
… “He estimated that the shift from manual document discovery to e-discovery would lead to a manpower reduction in which one lawyer would suffice for work that once required 500 and that the newest generation of software, which can detect duplicates and find clusters of important documents on a particular topic, could cut the head count by another 50 percent.”

But how much AI is really needed vs just get the legal system to stop screwing around?

Posted by vv111y | Report as abusive

ckbryant: brilliant

Posted by expatsp | Report as abusive

We’re still playing? Okay: With notably rare exceptions, Jeffrey Dahmer adhered to a strict vegan diet.

Posted by Christofurio | Report as abusive

TED doesn’t have comments, so here goes -

I’m with TED, bravo! Except this part I’ll say maybe, sorta, clarify please:

“Few people of sense would suggest that we will ever understand the inner workings of the global financial markets with any level of completeness or rigor”

– How much of that has anything to do with regulation? I think TED is saying little – I wonder if it’s none.

How about just enforcing The Rule of Law? That’s not that hard at all. Oh, and not changing the laws to benefit the crooks.

Purposely trying to be opaque and inaccessible doesn’t help either. The last article I read on that was from baselinescenario re legal publishing.

Speaking of which, there’s this article http://www.hpcwire.com/news/Artificial-I ntelligence-Job-Killer-118623649.html

“One application was able to analyze 1.5 million documents for less than $100,000 — a fraction of the cost of a legal team, and performed in a fraction of the time”
… “He estimated that the shift from manual document discovery to e-discovery would lead to a manpower reduction in which one lawyer would suffice for work that once required 500 and that the newest generation of software, which can detect duplicates and find clusters of important documents on a particular topic, could cut the head count by another 50 percent.”

But how much AI is really needed vs just get the legal system to stop screwing around?

Posted by vv111y | Report as abusive

oops, skip the 1st part of my post, but the 2nd part is still good

Posted by vv111y | Report as abusive