Feel free to buy an institutional broker a few drinks and ask about the techniques I reference. There's a whole branch of the business that specializes in managing large orders so that they stay price neutral.
This sort of activity is an extremely small part of what an HFT does, and not all HFTs do it. There is no "gaming" the system, they provide a valuable service, which is why the exchanges provide the mechanism for it. Valuable to the exchanges at least.
Yes, I should have said 'milliseconds'. And also as I said, any competent broker has techniques for avoiding the problem, the first step in which is not to attempt to place a huge order across multiple exchanges within near-millisecond frame simultaneity.
The AOL client in some cases, not all. Typically it runs through a proxy or third party service like Pivot so that all messages can be recorded, which is a regulatory requirement in the USA. The need to record everything precludes using OTR or similar mechanisms.
The proof is in the pudding as they say. There must be something to it, since the fraud rate for EMV card holders is far below signature-only card holders. No one is claiming that EMV is foolproof. It WOULD have stopped the Target breach since the POS system never handles the PIN, it only records the terminal's response that the PIN was valid.
Yeah, after re-reading it is ambiguous whether the OP meant within an exchange or across different exchanges. Obviously, I read it one way and this may not be what OP meant.
What is happening is that a company has tapped into the front-line routers to the trading systems with extremely high performance systems that can see and execute and deliver an incoming buy/sell order faster than the real buy/sell orders so they execute first, and injecting their own order AHEAD of your order
Completely false. This does indeed describe front running, which is illegal. There is no mechanism provided by any exchange which would allow any market maker to observe orders entering the exchange and then enter an order ahead of them. When an order enter the exchange, it is matched with offers that already exist in the system and that is the first time any market participant has an opportunity to react directly to it. What the book talks about is order placed across multiple exchanges, where one party would observe heavy activity in one exchange and *guess* that it is likely to be quickly repeated on other exchanges and try to get to the *other* exchange before the original party.
False. Any competent broker has techniques to avoid the problems described in the book. The major gist of which is, don't dump huge orders across multiple exchanges within a few seconds of each other.
Not every market event is weather related. Once relevant information becomes public, the price changes. For example, the CEO is resigning. The new iPhone specs are released, and company X has the contract to supply chips for it. All that happens in this sort of market is that prices rationalize more quickly in response instead of taking hours or days.
As well they should, since those games are not "rigged". The odds are publicly available for anyone to review and make a decision whether or not they wish to play. It is no secret that the odds are in favor of the house. If the games were rigged, this would not be the case.
How does a surge in spoofed spam lead one to conclude AOL was hacked? I understand this was due to people using the information to spoof messages to known contacts, thus being more likely to get the evil links clicked. What I don't see is why mail admins would suspect this before the fact simply due to a spike in spoofed email. Does this sort of thing happen often? (i.e. bulk spoofed to contacts after a compromise)
All you have to do is chart obesity over time in the US, the slope of the line changes dramatically upwards right when the low fat dietary guidelines came out from the USG. Correlation doesn't prove causation, certainly. But it does suggest that the matter is worth looking into.
this guy [bmj.com] didn't consume any calories at all, including fat, for 382 days with no ill-effects
Wow that is an amazing paper, thanks! Of course, he started with his own supply of 500 lbs of fat, so perhaps not entirely applicable. Interesting though, was the mention of fatalities from the re-feeding process.
Completely unbiased news is impossible, how do you decide which words to use, or which stories to report in a limited time frame? Look at 'demonstrator' versus 'rioter'. While both might be accurate, the choice of which to use has some bias in it. Some stories will get reported and others will get dropped, this choice will reflect the chooser's bias regarding what is important and what is not. And so on. As the reader/viewer, it is up to us to understand the bias of the news source and consider accordingly.
I don't see anything in the paper claiming to have found "a new shape". It also isn't clear why the word "shocked" is used, other than perhaps the results was unexpected. I guess an excerpt from the paper sums it best:
A recent, simple experiment using elastomer strips reveals that hemihelices with multiple reversals of chirality can also occur, a richness not anticipated by existing analyses. Here, we show through analysis and experiments that the transition from a helical to a hemihelical shape, as well as the number of perversions, depends on the height to width ratio of the strip's cross-section. Our findings provides the basis for the deterministic manufacture of a variety of complex three-dimensional shapes from flat strips.
Of course, after so long in Lunar gravity they will be physically unable to return to Earth, and be stuck in servitude in Luna. Eventually they will rebel and found their own republic, with the help of a sentient computer. Earth will capitulate when they threaten to drop moon rocks on major cities. The Moon is indeed a harsh mistress.
Surveys like this are always carefully designed to get the result the journalist has already decided he wants. In this case, there is a hell of a lot of wiggle room in these questions. For example, contrast "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old" with "the Earth is millions of years old" Might we get a different result? As other posters pointed out, someone might not be sure about 4.5 billion as the figure, and so might have answered with less confidence. Or "The average temperature of the world is rising, mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases" as opposed to "The average temperature of the world is rising". As other posters pointed out again, the survey here is conflating two questions.
There's also the question of sampling. Who would even participate in this survey? All these results describe is the part of the population that is willing to participate in surveys like this. I am not too confident that this adequately represents the American public.
You are right, this is the better question. Why do we have a world where a few pieces of information that are effectively public have any sort of value? I have to tell my address, phone number, SSN, and so on to every bank, doctor, potential employer, landlord, and so on. Yet we continue to delude ourselves that somehow the information is going to remain secret. Well, 30+ years of "the bad guys are winning" shows that keeping (essentially) public information secret just isn't going to happen.
Look at it from another perspective. Since I am not liable for false charges on my credit card, I don't care much at all about keeping that number secret. It is the bank's problem, not mine. (I suppose if I just posted it here on/. the law might be different though, since that is an intentional thing). And frankly, if we look at the numbers, not caring very much might be the best strategy. So the Target breach involved say, 200 million people. How many were impacted by anything more than some false credit charges? The banks paid the price for their failure to implement a better system, card holders are not liable for those charges.
What this story is saying is, why don't billions of people change their behavior instead of a few dozen financial institutions? I think we can see why the banks want us to ask questions like in the article. I am asking why we don't ask a few banks to change their process instead of an unrealistic expectation that human nature is going to change.
Yes, I understand I made a few oversimplifications and left some stuff out. Only for brevity, I assure you, I think the core point is still solid.
This illustrates the insanity of our society (USA). 57-115 years in jail, and no one other than a legal fiction was harmed at all? Meanwhile a murder gets less than that. It's insanity.
"Military (force|technology)" is an arbitrary distinction. "law enforcement" agencies of all sorts, national and local, use all sorts of technologies. As far as i have heard there is no legal distinction between a military and non-military technology. For example. The proliferation of violent commando raids against non-violent suspects.
No no no the "task chair" has no arms and is small and flimsy. The manager chair has arm rests, etc. I always took this to mean that the arm rest interfered with tasks getting done and thus it was OK for the manager to have them.
From the article, the incident took place while he was receiving math help from the teacher. From the sound of it, this crap goes on all during class. What a sad system that puts someone who needs a different approach to teaching into a class where kids mouth off and can't (or won't) be controlled.
Slashdot Mirror
Feel free to buy an institutional broker a few drinks and ask about the techniques I reference. There's a whole branch of the business that specializes in managing large orders so that they stay price neutral.
This sort of activity is an extremely small part of what an HFT does, and not all HFTs do it. There is no "gaming" the system, they provide a valuable service, which is why the exchanges provide the mechanism for it. Valuable to the exchanges at least.
Yes, I should have said 'milliseconds'. And also as I said, any competent broker has techniques for avoiding the problem, the first step in which is not to attempt to place a huge order across multiple exchanges within near-millisecond frame simultaneity.
"The higher the ideals, the lower the result." -Lao Tzu
The AOL client in some cases, not all. Typically it runs through a proxy or third party service like Pivot so that all messages can be recorded, which is a regulatory requirement in the USA. The need to record everything precludes using OTR or similar mechanisms.
The proof is in the pudding as they say. There must be something to it, since the fraud rate for EMV card holders is far below signature-only card holders. No one is claiming that EMV is foolproof. It WOULD have stopped the Target breach since the POS system never handles the PIN, it only records the terminal's response that the PIN was valid.
Yeah, after re-reading it is ambiguous whether the OP meant within an exchange or across different exchanges. Obviously, I read it one way and this may not be what OP meant.
What is happening is that a company has tapped into the front-line routers to the trading systems with extremely high performance systems that can see and execute and deliver an incoming buy/sell order faster than the real buy/sell orders so they execute first, and injecting their own order AHEAD of your order
Completely false. This does indeed describe front running, which is illegal. There is no mechanism provided by any exchange which would allow any market maker to observe orders entering the exchange and then enter an order ahead of them. When an order enter the exchange, it is matched with offers that already exist in the system and that is the first time any market participant has an opportunity to react directly to it. What the book talks about is order placed across multiple exchanges, where one party would observe heavy activity in one exchange and *guess* that it is likely to be quickly repeated on other exchanges and try to get to the *other* exchange before the original party.
False. Any competent broker has techniques to avoid the problems described in the book. The major gist of which is, don't dump huge orders across multiple exchanges within a few seconds of each other.
Not every market event is weather related. Once relevant information becomes public, the price changes. For example, the CEO is resigning. The new iPhone specs are released, and company X has the contract to supply chips for it. All that happens in this sort of market is that prices rationalize more quickly in response instead of taking hours or days.
As well they should, since those games are not "rigged". The odds are publicly available for anyone to review and make a decision whether or not they wish to play. It is no secret that the odds are in favor of the house. If the games were rigged, this would not be the case.
Incorrect. AIM, at least, is widely used within the financial world.
How does a surge in spoofed spam lead one to conclude AOL was hacked? I understand this was due to people using the information to spoof messages to known contacts, thus being more likely to get the evil links clicked. What I don't see is why mail admins would suspect this before the fact simply due to a spike in spoofed email. Does this sort of thing happen often? (i.e. bulk spoofed to contacts after a compromise)
All you have to do is chart obesity over time in the US, the slope of the line changes dramatically upwards right when the low fat dietary guidelines came out from the USG. Correlation doesn't prove causation, certainly. But it does suggest that the matter is worth looking into.
this guy [bmj.com] didn't consume any calories at all, including fat, for 382 days with no ill-effects
Wow that is an amazing paper, thanks! Of course, he started with his own supply of 500 lbs of fat, so perhaps not entirely applicable. Interesting though, was the mention of fatalities from the re-feeding process.
Completely unbiased news is impossible, how do you decide which words to use, or which stories to report in a limited time frame? Look at 'demonstrator' versus 'rioter'. While both might be accurate, the choice of which to use has some bias in it. Some stories will get reported and others will get dropped, this choice will reflect the chooser's bias regarding what is important and what is not. And so on. As the reader/viewer, it is up to us to understand the bias of the news source and consider accordingly.
A recent, simple experiment using elastomer strips reveals that hemihelices with multiple reversals of chirality can also occur, a richness not anticipated by existing analyses. Here, we show through analysis and experiments that the transition from a helical to a hemihelical shape, as well as the number of perversions, depends on the height to width ratio of the strip's cross-section. Our findings provides the basis for the deterministic manufacture of a variety of complex three-dimensional shapes from flat strips.
Of course, after so long in Lunar gravity they will be physically unable to return to Earth, and be stuck in servitude in Luna. Eventually they will rebel and found their own republic, with the help of a sentient computer. Earth will capitulate when they threaten to drop moon rocks on major cities. The Moon is indeed a harsh mistress.
Why wouldn't they just contribute this work to the existing OpenSSL? Why does it have to be a fork?
Surveys like this are always carefully designed to get the result the journalist has already decided he wants. In this case, there is a hell of a lot of wiggle room in these questions. For example, contrast "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old" with "the Earth is millions of years old" Might we get a different result? As other posters pointed out, someone might not be sure about 4.5 billion as the figure, and so might have answered with less confidence. Or "The average temperature of the world is rising, mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases" as opposed to "The average temperature of the world is rising". As other posters pointed out again, the survey here is conflating two questions.
There's also the question of sampling. Who would even participate in this survey? All these results describe is the part of the population that is willing to participate in surveys like this. I am not too confident that this adequately represents the American public.
You are right, this is the better question. Why do we have a world where a few pieces of information that are effectively public have any sort of value? I have to tell my address, phone number, SSN, and so on to every bank, doctor, potential employer, landlord, and so on. Yet we continue to delude ourselves that somehow the information is going to remain secret. Well, 30+ years of "the bad guys are winning" shows that keeping (essentially) public information secret just isn't going to happen.
/. the law might be different though, since that is an intentional thing). And frankly, if we look at the numbers, not caring very much might be the best strategy. So the Target breach involved say, 200 million people. How many were impacted by anything more than some false credit charges? The banks paid the price for their failure to implement a better system, card holders are not liable for those charges.
Look at it from another perspective. Since I am not liable for false charges on my credit card, I don't care much at all about keeping that number secret. It is the bank's problem, not mine. (I suppose if I just posted it here on
What this story is saying is, why don't billions of people change their behavior instead of a few dozen financial institutions? I think we can see why the banks want us to ask questions like in the article. I am asking why we don't ask a few banks to change their process instead of an unrealistic expectation that human nature is going to change.
Yes, I understand I made a few oversimplifications and left some stuff out. Only for brevity, I assure you, I think the core point is still solid.
This illustrates the insanity of our society (USA). 57-115 years in jail, and no one other than a legal fiction was harmed at all? Meanwhile a murder gets less than that. It's insanity.
"Military (force|technology)" is an arbitrary distinction. "law enforcement" agencies of all sorts, national and local, use all sorts of technologies. As far as i have heard there is no legal distinction between a military and non-military technology. For example. The proliferation of violent commando raids against non-violent suspects.
No no no the "task chair" has no arms and is small and flimsy. The manager chair has arm rests, etc. I always took this to mean that the arm rest interfered with tasks getting done and thus it was OK for the manager to have them.
From the article, the incident took place while he was receiving math help from the teacher. From the sound of it, this crap goes on all during class. What a sad system that puts someone who needs a different approach to teaching into a class where kids mouth off and can't (or won't) be controlled.