If you're already carrying an arduino device to plug into the port, I don't think the torx screwdrivers are going to significantly increase your risk of attracting attention.
The range of wifi is usually less than 100 meters, so to send a message across town it would have to go through hundreds of routers. Wouldn't that create enormous latency for things like voice? Sending messages would of course be perfectly possible, but something like a phone call would seem wildly optimistic. Or am I completely wrong?
Makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Women who have children from multiple men will have more diverse offspring, which evolution considers a "good thing". Also, rapists are probably more likely to be physically strong, another plus. And the woman might otherwise not have gotten a partner at all, so her body might as well seize the opportunity when it occurs. Nothing but upsides! Of course there are downsides too, like a missing father to care for the child, but human communities (and ape communities before them) have been pretty good at caring for others' babies for a very long time. The baby might be treated poorly or even killed, but that would be a relatively recent devolopment in society that hasn't had time to do a lot of selection yet. So I could imagine that, no matter how badly the woman wants not to get pregnant, her body would actually do the exact opposite and invite the sperm in because it provides (or used to provide) an evolutionary advantage to do so.
(Obviously I'm not taking a moral perspective here, just guessing about the cold, amoral behaviour of evolution)
I could imagine that evolution would actually have made women more likely to conceive when raped. Genetic diversity, the attacker usually being strong (having strong genes?) etcetera. Evolution loves this kind of thing, no matter how immoral it seems to us. So the female body might actually roll out the red carpet for those sperm cells precisely when she doesn't want it to.
Now, what would be even better would be fake answers from other users! If you're just trying to fool bots that might have an algorithm for detecting hellbanning, you could even just make random replies with random words. If you're trying to fool humans, you might try multiple variations and synonyms of "go stuff yourself", seemingly coming from other users.
Of course, all of this does not address the fact that you only need a single "normal" account that has never been used for spam and from a very different IP address (spoofed via vpn or whatever) to check up on all of your bots' posted messages.
So it looks like it was not so easy to type after all, or was it an intentional error?
By the way, I once filed a bug report with Apple because they had disabled cursor navigation in password fields, making schemes like yours very difficult. I got a "behaves correctly" reply, but a few system updates later they seemed to have changed their minds and reenabled it.
- Lernout and Hauspie, once a world famous speech technology company based in Belgium. When the first rumors about fraud came out, it started raining "strong buy" recommendations from everywhere. The rumors were false or at the very least overblown, this was still a great company, the share price drop is the fault of short sellers, this is a perfect time to get into this great company, etcetera. Not just in Belgium, mind you. Yahoo! Finance was full of articles about how you should buy this company and multiply your savings, from pretty much all the big institutions. Then, later on, oops, it turns out the rumors were right after all. But all those regular people like you and me who believed the buy ratings, who do you think they were buying from?
- Fortis, a fairly large and internationally well known bank in Belgium and surrounding countries. Same thing, the rumors are exaggerated, there are some temporary liquidity problems but nothing fundamentally wrong, it's crazy for the price to be so low, short selling is to blame for this, now is the time to buy, if it goes back up to the old levels in a few years you will have multiplied your money by four! By ten! Oops, turns out the rumors were right after all, who would have known? Certainly not the big bankers who were sending out the strong buy orders! After all, how could they know what was really going on inside of Fortis? It's not like they knew anyone there, right? Errr... right.
Whenever my regular banker starts sending out advice to buy a stock (which only happens once every few years), I immediately look at the stock and consider buying put options.
Those stocks stopped trading and became worthless, but not right away. After the bad news came out, there were still plenty of people going in for a bargain hoping the news would not be as bad as everyone thought. Those people will be there whether the time between trades is milliseconds or hours.
Being able to trade on a millisecond time scale just allows the big players to get out of a position faster than the rest of us who have yet to digest the news. If some news item does indeed make a company completely worthless beyond any doubt, I don't see why it would be "wrong" for the stock to become worthless right away and stop trading, for everybody including the big guys, rather than allowing the quickest institutional players to get out during the milliseconds after the news bulletin.
Usually, though, stocks don't "go to zero" and the stock will keep trading for many days. Having an hour between trades wouldn't change that. And if the company really did become worthless immediately so that nobody would want to buy it, then so be it. That has nothing to do with liquidity. Why would it be better for a stock to slide to zero over the course of an hour rather than stop trading right away? Would that have any benefit to regular investors?
"All the way down to 0" reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy", where Brawndo stock dropped to zero when the news came out about not using it to water crops anymore. I always thought it would be hilarious to have a stock actually trading at zero.
But anyway, I think there will always be plenty of people wanting to buy the stock at some reasonable price. If anything, there will be quite a few long term limit orders in the system so at least those will get executed. Your 0/1 example seems very unrealistic to me.
I don't know exactly how their scheme worked, but I have often thought I might be able to do something like that quite easily. I have often been frustrated by seeing a bid/ask at 0.18/0.20, trying to buy at.19, seeing the spread move to.19/.21, changing the order to.20, seeing the spread move to.20/.22, finally settling for.22, then seeing the price drop back down to.18/.20 minutes afterwards. After having had that experience a few times, I started wondering: what if I wanted to buy this option, but put in sell orders instead of buys? Then, when the price has moved down enough. suddenly cancel the order and immediately put in a buy order at the current ask price.
Is that more or less what they did? I know media tend to exaggerate, so the "reverse engineering" may well have been as simple as that. I could imagine myself doing it, too! And then get thrown in jail for it? Extremely unfair if you ask me.
If Knight was selling low and buying high, how is their counterparty going to benefit from having those trades canceled? And what if you made two trades and only one gets canceled? You may even end up with a short position at a loss instead of a gain.
And why is it that HFT firms can execute thousands of trades per second while the NYSE is unable to halt trading after a move of 10%? Are they the only ones still using pen and paper?
By having a stop order executed? Or by getting a margin call? (OK, the latter are maybe not for "average" investors but quite a few ordinary people like you and me do have a margin account).
The only problem is people with stop orders. You buy a stock at $10 with a stop at $8 just in case something happens while you're on vacation. Knight starts selling the stock, your stop gets executed, then the price moves back up to $10.
Of course you could argue that it's their own fault for using stops, but these stops do serve a purpose and it's Knight's fault that they got executed. Just like deliberately manipulating share prices is illegal, maybe firms should be liable for losses resulting from accidental manipulation of prices.
Certainly Knight Capital's trades should not be unwound. I do feel more sympathy for people with stop orders that got executed. That's precisely why I never use stops, but some people swear by them, "for safety". But if you roll back those orders, other people will get stuck with only the wrong half of a smart trade, some may suddenly have a short position and lose money because their lower buy order has been canceled while the sell order remained. Etcetera. I don't know how they handle these things, but I can imagine it gets really messy. I think the best solution is not rolling back any of those trades. Maybe organise some kinde of compensation from Knight Capital for people who lost money with stops (hold them liable for the loss), but don't cancel any trades.
Some HFTs have lost money because they screwed up their algorithms or fat-fingered a trade, but that is their own fault, they lost their own money, and for every penny they lost, someone else gained.
Except those who got their trades reversed. Imagine seeing a stock plummet from 10 to 5, buying at 5, selling when it gets back to 8. The stock then continues back up to 10, and a few days later you get a message... that buy at 5 was canceled and you are now short at 8 while the stock is at 10!
Slashdot Mirror
If you're already carrying an arduino device to plug into the port, I don't think the torx screwdrivers are going to significantly increase your risk of attracting attention.
The range of wifi is usually less than 100 meters, so to send a message across town it would have to go through hundreds of routers. Wouldn't that create enormous latency for things like voice? Sending messages would of course be perfectly possible, but something like a phone call would seem wildly optimistic. Or am I completely wrong?
Makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Women who have children from multiple men will have more diverse offspring, which evolution considers a "good thing". Also, rapists are probably more likely to be physically strong, another plus. And the woman might otherwise not have gotten a partner at all, so her body might as well seize the opportunity when it occurs. Nothing but upsides! Of course there are downsides too, like a missing father to care for the child, but human communities (and ape communities before them) have been pretty good at caring for others' babies for a very long time. The baby might be treated poorly or even killed, but that would be a relatively recent devolopment in society that hasn't had time to do a lot of selection yet. So I could imagine that, no matter how badly the woman wants not to get pregnant, her body would actually do the exact opposite and invite the sperm in because it provides (or used to provide) an evolutionary advantage to do so.
(Obviously I'm not taking a moral perspective here, just guessing about the cold, amoral behaviour of evolution)
I could imagine that evolution would actually have made women more likely to conceive when raped. Genetic diversity, the attacker usually being strong (having strong genes?) etcetera. Evolution loves this kind of thing, no matter how immoral it seems to us. So the female body might actually roll out the red carpet for those sperm cells precisely when she doesn't want it to.
Now, what would be even better would be fake answers from other users! If you're just trying to fool bots that might have an algorithm for detecting hellbanning, you could even just make random replies with random words. If you're trying to fool humans, you might try multiple variations and synonyms of "go stuff yourself", seemingly coming from other users.
Of course, all of this does not address the fact that you only need a single "normal" account that has never been used for spam and from a very different IP address (spoofed via vpn or whatever) to check up on all of your bots' posted messages.
And they're theorizing that the dogs are somehow causing the earthquake
When will companies learn to stop copying Apple features on Android?
They're clearly violating the Apple patent on "enhancing user experience by removing functionality".
The link in the article was slashdotted, but here' a working one on the lego cuusoo site:
http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/3431
not to order assault rifles over the internet.
2tyh7eor1eui8sfn2ooy8bre1tgw8eoe2ntt8hae4aln5des9utc0kt4e5r
So it looks like it was not so easy to type after all, or was it an intentional error?
By the way, I once filed a bug report with Apple because they had disabled cursor navigation in password fields, making schemes like yours very difficult. I got a "behaves correctly" reply, but a few system updates later they seemed to have changed their minds and reenabled it.
There are indeed. It's how markets used to work, and some low volume issues are still traded this way, with one or two "fixings" per day.
And ways to avoid those laws?
I've just seen this happen too many times.
I'll give you just two examples:
- Lernout and Hauspie, once a world famous speech technology company based in Belgium. When the first rumors about fraud came out, it started raining "strong buy" recommendations from everywhere. The rumors were false or at the very least overblown, this was still a great company, the share price drop is the fault of short sellers, this is a perfect time to get into this great company, etcetera. Not just in Belgium, mind you. Yahoo! Finance was full of articles about how you should buy this company and multiply your savings, from pretty much all the big institutions. Then, later on, oops, it turns out the rumors were right after all. But all those regular people like you and me who believed the buy ratings, who do you think they were buying from?
- Fortis, a fairly large and internationally well known bank in Belgium and surrounding countries. Same thing, the rumors are exaggerated, there are some temporary liquidity problems but nothing fundamentally wrong, it's crazy for the price to be so low, short selling is to blame for this, now is the time to buy, if it goes back up to the old levels in a few years you will have multiplied your money by four! By ten! Oops, turns out the rumors were right after all, who would have known? Certainly not the big bankers who were sending out the strong buy orders! After all, how could they know what was really going on inside of Fortis? It's not like they knew anyone there, right? Errr... right.
Whenever my regular banker starts sending out advice to buy a stock (which only happens once every few years), I immediately look at the stock and consider buying put options.
Those stocks stopped trading and became worthless, but not right away. After the bad news came out, there were still plenty of people going in for a bargain hoping the news would not be as bad as everyone thought. Those people will be there whether the time between trades is milliseconds or hours.
Being able to trade on a millisecond time scale just allows the big players to get out of a position faster than the rest of us who have yet to digest the news. If some news item does indeed make a company completely worthless beyond any doubt, I don't see why it would be "wrong" for the stock to become worthless right away and stop trading, for everybody including the big guys, rather than allowing the quickest institutional players to get out during the milliseconds after the news bulletin.
Usually, though, stocks don't "go to zero" and the stock will keep trading for many days. Having an hour between trades wouldn't change that. And if the company really did become worthless immediately so that nobody would want to buy it, then so be it. That has nothing to do with liquidity. Why would it be better for a stock to slide to zero over the course of an hour rather than stop trading right away? Would that have any benefit to regular investors?
But if you're attending it, why use a stop? The whole point of a stop is to curb your losses if an unexpected move happens while you're not watching.
I agree that it's a bad idea, but apparently it's useful enough for quite a lot of people to use it. Why else would it exist?
"All the way down to 0" reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy", where Brawndo stock dropped to zero when the news came out about not using it to water crops anymore. I always thought it would be hilarious to have a stock actually trading at zero.
But anyway, I think there will always be plenty of people wanting to buy the stock at some reasonable price. If anything, there will be quite a few long term limit orders in the system so at least those will get executed. Your 0/1 example seems very unrealistic to me.
Just when everyone had given up hope!
I don't know exactly how their scheme worked, but I have often thought I might be able to do something like that quite easily. I have often been frustrated by seeing a bid/ask at 0.18/0.20, trying to buy at .19, seeing the spread move to .19/.21, changing the order to .20, seeing the spread move to .20/.22, finally settling for .22, then seeing the price drop back down to .18/.20 minutes afterwards. After having had that experience a few times, I started wondering: what if I wanted to buy this option, but put in sell orders instead of buys? Then, when the price has moved down enough. suddenly cancel the order and immediately put in a buy order at the current ask price.
Is that more or less what they did? I know media tend to exaggerate, so the "reverse engineering" may well have been as simple as that. I could imagine myself doing it, too! And then get thrown in jail for it? Extremely unfair if you ask me.
Except if you get to be on the receiving end of a patent claim
People with stop orders that got executed might care.
Of course they had to get rid of their own shares first. They'll downgrade them further to "sell" when they want to start buying again.
If Knight was selling low and buying high, how is their counterparty going to benefit from having those trades canceled? And what if you made two trades and only one gets canceled? You may even end up with a short position at a loss instead of a gain.
And why is it that HFT firms can execute thousands of trades per second while the NYSE is unable to halt trading after a move of 10%? Are they the only ones still using pen and paper?
By having a stop order executed? Or by getting a margin call? (OK, the latter are maybe not for "average" investors but quite a few ordinary people like you and me do have a margin account).
The only problem is people with stop orders. You buy a stock at $10 with a stop at $8 just in case something happens while you're on vacation. Knight starts selling the stock, your stop gets executed, then the price moves back up to $10.
Of course you could argue that it's their own fault for using stops, but these stops do serve a purpose and it's Knight's fault that they got executed. Just like deliberately manipulating share prices is illegal, maybe firms should be liable for losses resulting from accidental manipulation of prices.
Certainly Knight Capital's trades should not be unwound. I do feel more sympathy for people with stop orders that got executed. That's precisely why I never use stops, but some people swear by them, "for safety". But if you roll back those orders, other people will get stuck with only the wrong half of a smart trade, some may suddenly have a short position and lose money because their lower buy order has been canceled while the sell order remained. Etcetera. I don't know how they handle these things, but I can imagine it gets really messy. I think the best solution is not rolling back any of those trades. Maybe organise some kinde of compensation from Knight Capital for people who lost money with stops (hold them liable for the loss), but don't cancel any trades.
Some HFTs have lost money because they screwed up their algorithms or fat-fingered a trade, but that is their own fault, they lost their own money, and for every penny they lost, someone else gained.
Except those who got their trades reversed. Imagine seeing a stock plummet from 10 to 5, buying at 5, selling when it gets back to 8. The stock then continues back up to 10, and a few days later you get a message... that buy at 5 was canceled and you are now short at 8 while the stock is at 10!