How's that relevant? You did mention this thread is not conducive to your health but I expected you to at least post stuff which made sense at a kindergarten level in spite of the health concerns. My bad, I guess.
Come on, you can do better than this in spite of your health, surely? You need a citation for my cowering or for you letting me know about an action of mossberg?
I've been cowering in my basement for fear of the slashdot authorities all day.
But do let me know when mossberg studies the willingness of sane people to discuss the difference between $1000 and $999 while being above discussing cents.
OTHEROS proves that a company can break its promises and
1. not lose in courts (hint : an early failed public-interest helps so the company can sponsor a weak one itself before more people wake up, courts have been bought to declare it legal for a computer click to rob people of their fundamental right of approaching courts for public-interest litigation too) 2. have corporate worshipping fanboys defend the company for the benevolence of cheating its customers.
The very fact that you disagree with this makes 2nd point come true, and first is not debatable anyway. So go on disagreeing and keep making it truer and truer.
It is not loss of future income when all your sales stop.
Wow! This sentence is instructive in prejudice. "Stop" is a term typically not used for cancellation of past events, but rather for cessation of future events of the same class. So if past sales are being cancelled, why are you using the word "stop"? And if future sales are not taking place, how is it not a loss of future income?
And everyone knows there was no cancellation of past sales, an equivalent of that would have happened if Sony had any SLAs with their paying customers, but they didn't. The idiot customers were at Sony's mercy.
If we lay you off of your useless job and you stop receiving a paycheck the lay off costs you money
Ignoring insults, it doesn't cost me any money, just money stops coming in the FUTURE.
Communication ceased.
Yes, like it was useless to discuss anything with me more than a dozen posts in the thread ago.
At least one decided that since it was linked to by the WSJ it must be evil propaganda
Wall Street is the one benefitting from HFT so obviously they publish biased documents supporting it. Any industry body advocates for itself, that advocacy becomes academically untrustworthy in sight of inherent conflict of interest. Facts mentioned therein are admissible, but you have been unable to answer simple questions (e.g. utility of Rothschild's arbitration) based on them.
The very definition of "liquidity" used by stock market pundits is questionable, and distinct from a definition really useful for economy at large, detailed here.
1. According to you, as a business, they considered loss of future income as a cost. 2. $171 million according to Sony. They can well consider securing their network a cost, which they should have done anyway. So no evidence of real cost, just accounts rigged. 3. Nothing comparable to "razed to ground".
A definition where future lack of money income is not mistakenly assumed to be a loss of past money in the guise of misunderstanding business accounting.
My reply was to a poster that by saying the event was "very detrimental" to a post saying a car company would have been "razed to ground" asserted some degree of comparison between what Sony suffered and being razed to ground.
Comparison was with being razed to ground to which you replied that it was very detrimental to Sony. Due to having cheated people and having insufficient security for their online platform if they lost some "future" money, it deserves no sympathy. Nor is it comparable to being razed to ground.
And yes, to add to the post, you are the one who doesn't want to get into a discussion of cents, not me. So you can play the game with yourself or other "like minded" people who don't want to discuss cents.
They are wrong then, as are you. Future money not coming in because one's own fault is poles apart from not being able to play one's lawfully purchased games for no fault of oneself.
First you think non-zero cost means very detrimental. And now you think that you not attacking every aspect of every action of some entity means you cannot possibly be defending its one aspect. Which is the defence I am arguing is a faulty defence.
Along the same lines (not that I expect you to stick to any logical lines) , what do you think of your calling "blinding hate ", my statement that Sony had done great things technologically?
You are conflating investment and trading. HFTs are, and are competing with - traders. Traders don't benchmark themselves against indices.
In fact large traders (and HFTs) are special kind of traders who don't even need money to trade. They borrow on the fly and trade with it. So they make money on zero capital, in the market at least. Their business capital is in nanosecond data centres etc. which I am not claiming is zero.
So comparing their return-on-capital with those of mutual funds / indices is like comparing apples with quantum physics.
Right, Wall Street Journal talking about HFT. Hope you trust North Korea's national mass media for justification of their "nuclear program" and theatricals about it.
Slashdot Mirror
who's discussing cents?
You.
YOU make no "cents" bahahahaha
Doesn't mean anything, sorry for the loss of your mental health.
No, my question has been from the beginning how you can differentiate between $1000 and $999 while claiming to be above discussing cents.
And how's that relevant?
How's that relevant? You did mention this thread is not conducive to your health but I expected you to at least post stuff which made sense at a kindergarten level in spite of the health concerns. My bad, I guess.
Come on, you can do better than this in spite of your health, surely? You need a citation for my cowering or for you letting me know about an action of mossberg?
I've been cowering in my basement for fear of the slashdot authorities all day.
But do let me know when mossberg studies the willingness of sane people to discuss the difference between $1000 and $999 while being above discussing cents.
OTHEROS proves that a company can break its promises and
1. not lose in courts (hint : an early failed public-interest helps so the company can sponsor a weak one itself before more people wake up, courts have been bought to declare it legal for a computer click to rob people of their fundamental right of approaching courts for public-interest litigation too)
2. have corporate worshipping fanboys defend the company for the benevolence of cheating its customers.
The very fact that you disagree with this makes 2nd point come true, and first is not debatable anyway. So go on disagreeing and keep making it truer and truer.
It is not loss of future income when all your sales stop.
Wow! This sentence is instructive in prejudice.
"Stop" is a term typically not used for cancellation of past events, but rather for cessation of future events of the same class. So if past sales are being cancelled, why are you using the word "stop"? And if future sales are not taking place, how is it not a loss of future income?
And everyone knows there was no cancellation of past sales, an equivalent of that would have happened if Sony had any SLAs with their paying customers, but they didn't. The idiot customers were at Sony's mercy.
If we lay you off of your useless job and you stop receiving a paycheck the lay off costs you money
Ignoring insults, it doesn't cost me any money, just money stops coming in the FUTURE.
Communication ceased.
Yes, like it was useless to discuss anything with me more than a dozen posts in the thread ago.
At least one decided that since it was linked to by the WSJ it must be evil propaganda
Wall Street is the one benefitting from HFT so obviously they publish biased documents supporting it. Any industry body advocates for itself, that advocacy becomes academically untrustworthy in sight of inherent conflict of interest. Facts mentioned therein are admissible, but you have been unable to answer simple questions (e.g. utility of Rothschild's arbitration) based on them.
The very definition of "liquidity" used by stock market pundits is questionable, and distinct from a definition really useful for economy at large, detailed here.
1. According to you, as a business, they considered loss of future income as a cost.
2. $171 million according to Sony. They can well consider securing their network a cost, which they should have done anyway. So no evidence of real cost, just accounts rigged.
3. Nothing comparable to "razed to ground".
A definition where future lack of money income is not mistakenly assumed to be a loss of past money in the guise of misunderstanding business accounting.
Your post is the proof your this same post is wrong! Incredible as it may appear.
Sony proved by OtherOS that bait-and-switch will be tolerated, even defended by people. Like you defend it by saying "Sony was RIGHT to pull OtherOS".
This post of yours will go down in history as one of the few self-falsifying posts.
My reply was to a poster that by saying the event was "very detrimental" to a post saying a car company would have been "razed to ground" asserted some degree of comparison between what Sony suffered and being razed to ground.
Which is false because there is no comparison.
Yes I'm the one your mom warned you about.
I am shaking in fear. Really.
Comparison was with being razed to ground to which you replied that it was very detrimental to Sony. Due to having cheated people and having insufficient security for their online platform if they lost some "future" money, it deserves no sympathy. Nor is it comparable to being razed to ground.
No, you stated equality between lost money and money not coming in the future. That is where you are wrong (for one).
And yes, to add to the post, you are the one who doesn't want to get into a discussion of cents, not me. So you can play the game with yourself or other "like minded" people who don't want to discuss cents.
They are wrong then, as are you. Future money not coming in because one's own fault is poles apart from not being able to play one's lawfully purchased games for no fault of oneself.
Ok, so now you are equating money not coming as money lost.
First you think non-zero cost means very detrimental. And now you think that you not attacking every aspect of every action of some entity means you cannot possibly be defending its one aspect. Which is the defence I am arguing is a faulty defence.
Along the same lines (not that I expect you to stick to any logical lines) , what do you think of your calling "blinding hate ", my statement that Sony had done great things technologically?
Haha. Slashdot authorities. Mod up +11 funny, modders.
You are conflating investment and trading. HFTs are, and are competing with - traders. Traders don't benchmark themselves against indices.
In fact large traders (and HFTs) are special kind of traders who don't even need money to trade. They borrow on the fly and trade with it. So they make money on zero capital, in the market at least. Their business capital is in nanosecond data centres etc. which I am not claiming is zero.
So comparing their return-on-capital with those of mutual funds / indices is like comparing apples with quantum physics.
Right, Wall Street Journal talking about HFT. Hope you trust North Korea's national mass media for justification of their "nuclear program" and theatricals about it.
You failed to explain how this "arbitrage" by Rothschild benefited the market / economy / mankind at large.