Exactly.. when Germany joined the Eurozone, adoption of the Euro amongst the people was extremely low...
The solution was for the german government to demand that taxes be paid in Euro's... in one year the use of the Euro went from low percentages to high percentages.
The simple fact is that if you put two people in a room who want to make a transaction, they will do so if both are reasonable.
No sir, thats not a 'fact'
If you put two people in a room, they only trade if its mutually beneficial. That, my friend, is the fact. The HFT only comes into play when those two people do not see eye to eye.
Unless they are deliberately giving away an endless stream of money, that is literally impossible.
This from the person that doesnt even know that there is a difference between bid prices and ask prices. It is only within this difference that the HFT's can make a profit, and they can only do so if they reduce that spread.
Until you have an argument that acknowledges that there are two prices, we can only presume that you dont have any clue at all what you are talking about. For the record, the amount of peer reviewed research on the subject is legion. Perhaps instead of declaring it impossible, you should educate yourself instead of just being a denier.
The problem with your analogy is that while Jim put out an 'ask' for $0.50 there clearly were no 'bids' for $0.50. The best bid was at most $0.49.. your Jon character is imaginary because nobody was actually looking to buy at $0.50 to begin with. If this wonder trader picked up the Apple for $0.50, then Jim made an extra $0.01.
The HFT's offer the best bids and asks (or else they wouldnt get any trades) -- there is nothing wrong with better prices for people looking to buy and sell -- really, there isn't -- it doesnt matter if some guy in the middle makes some money in the process - you are still getting a better price.
Notice how most of the people that hate HFT's dont even understand the difference between bids and asks, and that often even the rare few that do show at least this minimum level of understanding they often confuse the two and imagine that bids are higher than asks.
He doesnt care. His opinion is fueled by hatred rather than rationality.
Those evil HFT's offer the best prices on both bids and asks, but that doesnt matter.. because they make money at it and making money that way is apparently so much pure evil that the positive effects it has are irrelevant.
This will kill the ridiculous business of racing for fastest connection and smartest trading algo, which is *good* because it is a ridiculous and useless business.
That is not a reason to consider it "good." Essentially you are saying "I dont like how he makes money, so lets punish him"
For it to be "good" there needs to be a positive effect. Please explain what the positive effect is, because I dont see it. I see the HFT offering bids and asks that are better than everyone elses.. how is discouraging better prices for both buyers and sellers a good thing?
Seriously.. explain it to me without resorting to a hatred. Explain to everyone why it is that when they get a higher price when they sell and a lower price when they buy that its "bad." I happen to like paying less for things when I buy, and getting more for things when I sell.
Got a citation for VP9 not being better or equal to h.265?
I've got a citation that h.265 is about twice as good as h.264 (50% of the bandwidth for equal quality), but I dont see Google claiming that VP9 is a big improvement over VP8.. VP9 mainly just seems to just use larger macro blocks than VP8.. looks like they rushed it out to try to get traction before devices support h.265
This is why i have the urge to fucking bitchslap libertarians, how the fuck can you keep babbling on about "the free market" when there is NO free market, has NEVER been a free market
Why not listen to the fucking libertarians next time.. they were the ones that told you that telecom wasnt a free market. You are blaming the libertarians for what you big government fucks created.
The home of the brave indeed. More like the home of the scared. The home of the frightened.
The media is telling you that the people are afraid, but have you actually witnessed people being afraid?
MSNBC sure as fuck is telling us on a daily basis now that the majority of people dont mind being spied on. If its a majority, then how come in practice the majority of the people that you actually know are against being spied on? The media has invented new imaginary Americans that are different from the actual Americans that you might come across.
No, because it doesnt make sense. There is no way to cheaply get those "trillions of dollars" that an asteroid could contain into a low earth orbit, let alone down to the surface... that sort of delta-v for that sort of mass just doesnt come cheap.
The moon is a bad idea as well.. why trade one gravity well for another?
Space station technology is what they should be working on, in particular self-sustaining environments.
Please explain why one should be considered illegal and the other not?
He wont because he doesnt understand the technology. He doesnt understand that a torrent file is about 12KB in size and contains absolutely nothing even remotely illegal.
The SATA 3 spec was released in July 2008, which was about the year when only the very first consumer SSDs started to appear. Maybe the spec was mostly designed for fast HDDs
You mean the HDD's that still to this day struggle at 100MB/sec across the platter? Just like they did then?
Sure, maybe they designed their 600MB/sec interface based on 100MB/sec technology that was running on a 300MB/sec interface..... *rolls eyes*
As far as July 2008, that was the DRAFT specification of SATA 3 that they released on that date, but a year prior to that companies like Fusion-IO were making PCIe SSD's that were already faster than SATA 3 could handle...
When thinking back to the early days of performance SSD's, I am always reminded of The Battleship Mtron project, which was in 2007. Note how they, too, struggled with interface.
You bring up the past a lot, pointing out that the enthusiast/etc market is much smaller than it used to be...
...but then you bring an argument from the past, that of burning out CPU's, and try to use that as some sort of point.
Pick a decade and stick to it, rather than picking and choosing facts. People dont burn out their CPU's anymore when overclocking, and thats been true for an entire fucking decade now. Seems to me that you never overclocked anything, ever, and are using lots and lots of excuses now to rationalize your irrational fear of it ("idle task".. really? Fucking retard..)
The year SATA 3 was put into production, SSD's designs were reconfigured to saturated it, and those fusion I/O drives saturate their PCI lane bandwidth....
SATA 3 was and always will be shortsighted bullshit brought to you by a consortium of asshats intentionally trying to undercut feature demand in their desperate attempt to preserve the old guard.
In other words, it wants the anti-nuclear activists to have a voice.
..as if they didnt already?
The anti-nuclear activists have destroyed the prospects of widespread nuclear adoption in more than a few countries, including the United States.
The problem is that their voice has been the only god damned voice, so fuck em if they are crying now about not being able to continue to drown out any discussion.
Well, sorry folks, it's only available in Australia. And we wonder why people are attempting to steal it? Seriously
Exactly. I could be convinced to pay $50/month for a streaming on-demand service if it had nearly everything -- to re-iterate, the key factors are:
(a) ON-DEMAND
(b) NEARLY EVERYTHING
Furthermore I propose that the content owners could offer this service at nearly no cost to themselves, by simply indemnifying subscribers from any and all legal and contractual repercussions if they are caught torrenting their content. $50/month in order to never get sued by members of the RIAA and MPAA.. I'll take it.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.. when Germany joined the Eurozone, adoption of the Euro amongst the people was extremely low...
The solution was for the german government to demand that taxes be paid in Euro's... in one year the use of the Euro went from low percentages to high percentages.
The simple fact is that if you put two people in a room who want to make a transaction, they will do so if both are reasonable.
No sir, thats not a 'fact'
If you put two people in a room, they only trade if its mutually beneficial. That, my friend, is the fact. The HFT only comes into play when those two people do not see eye to eye.
Unless they are deliberately giving away an endless stream of money, that is literally impossible.
This from the person that doesnt even know that there is a difference between bid prices and ask prices. It is only within this difference that the HFT's can make a profit, and they can only do so if they reduce that spread.
Until you have an argument that acknowledges that there are two prices, we can only presume that you dont have any clue at all what you are talking about. For the record, the amount of peer reviewed research on the subject is legion. Perhaps instead of declaring it impossible, you should educate yourself instead of just being a denier.
The problem with your analogy is that while Jim put out an 'ask' for $0.50 there clearly were no 'bids' for $0.50. The best bid was at most $0.49 .. your Jon character is imaginary because nobody was actually looking to buy at $0.50 to begin with. If this wonder trader picked up the Apple for $0.50, then Jim made an extra $0.01.
That's not what's happening. You are being front-runned.
I know that people claim that its not what is happening, however the peer-reviewed research says different.
Ditto - Mod the grandparent up.
The HFT's offer the best bids and asks (or else they wouldnt get any trades) -- there is nothing wrong with better prices for people looking to buy and sell -- really, there isn't -- it doesnt matter if some guy in the middle makes some money in the process - you are still getting a better price.
Notice how most of the people that hate HFT's dont even understand the difference between bids and asks, and that often even the rare few that do show at least this minimum level of understanding they often confuse the two and imagine that bids are higher than asks.
Serious question: Does anyone know any day-traders? Everyone I used to know who did this gave up because of the robots.
I don't know anyone that makes buggy whips either....
He doesnt care. His opinion is fueled by hatred rather than rationality.
Those evil HFT's offer the best prices on both bids and asks, but that doesnt matter.. because they make money at it and making money that way is apparently so much pure evil that the positive effects it has are irrelevant.
This will kill the ridiculous business of racing for fastest connection and smartest trading algo, which is *good* because it is a ridiculous and useless business.
That is not a reason to consider it "good." Essentially you are saying "I dont like how he makes money, so lets punish him"
.. how is discouraging better prices for both buyers and sellers a good thing?
For it to be "good" there needs to be a positive effect. Please explain what the positive effect is, because I dont see it. I see the HFT offering bids and asks that are better than everyone elses
Seriously.. explain it to me without resorting to a hatred. Explain to everyone why it is that when they get a higher price when they sell and a lower price when they buy that its "bad." I happen to like paying less for things when I buy, and getting more for things when I sell.
Got a citation for VP9 not being better or equal to h.265?
I've got a citation that h.265 is about twice as good as h.264 (50% of the bandwidth for equal quality), but I dont see Google claiming that VP9 is a big improvement over VP8 .. VP9 mainly just seems to just use larger macro blocks than VP8.. looks like they rushed it out to try to get traction before devices support h.265
B) You mean "less conservative", not "liberal".
They arent true Scotsman?
Here is an idea.. wake up.. get a clue.. accept or reject what the liberals are doing without trying to play hide-and-seek with your own identity.
But the physical monopoly, always backed by protectionist laws, is bad for the user and bad for the market.
FTFY
Do you really think that the solution to the RIAA/MPAA is for further consolidation?
Really?
Thats just dumb.
This is why i have the urge to fucking bitchslap libertarians, how the fuck can you keep babbling on about "the free market" when there is NO free market, has NEVER been a free market
Why not listen to the fucking libertarians next time.. they were the ones that told you that telecom wasnt a free market. You are blaming the libertarians for what you big government fucks created.
The home of the brave indeed. More like the home of the scared. The home of the frightened.
The media is telling you that the people are afraid, but have you actually witnessed people being afraid?
MSNBC sure as fuck is telling us on a daily basis now that the majority of people dont mind being spied on. If its a majority, then how come in practice the majority of the people that you actually know are against being spied on? The media has invented new imaginary Americans that are different from the actual Americans that you might come across.
he could win a few more points by leaving out the political aspect and make the appeal that this affects everyone equally.
Does it effect everyone equally? The IRS sure as fuck didnt target people equally....
No, because it doesnt make sense. There is no way to cheaply get those "trillions of dollars" that an asteroid could contain into a low earth orbit, let alone down to the surface... that sort of delta-v for that sort of mass just doesnt come cheap.
The moon is a bad idea as well.. why trade one gravity well for another?
Space station technology is what they should be working on, in particular self-sustaining environments.
Please explain why one should be considered illegal and the other not?
He wont because he doesnt understand the technology. He doesnt understand that a torrent file is about 12KB in size and contains absolutely nothing even remotely illegal.
The SATA 3 spec was released in July 2008, which was about the year when only the very first consumer SSDs started to appear. Maybe the spec was mostly designed for fast HDDs
You mean the HDD's that still to this day struggle at 100MB/sec across the platter? Just like they did then?
..... *rolls eyes*
Sure, maybe they designed their 600MB/sec interface based on 100MB/sec technology that was running on a 300MB/sec interface
As far as July 2008, that was the DRAFT specification of SATA 3 that they released on that date, but a year prior to that companies like Fusion-IO were making PCIe SSD's that were already faster than SATA 3 could handle...
When thinking back to the early days of performance SSD's, I am always reminded of The Battleship Mtron project, which was in 2007. Note how they, too, struggled with interface.
You bring up the past a lot, pointing out that the enthusiast/etc market is much smaller than it used to be...
...but then you bring an argument from the past, that of burning out CPU's, and try to use that as some sort of point.
.. really? Fucking retard..)
Pick a decade and stick to it, rather than picking and choosing facts. People dont burn out their CPU's anymore when overclocking, and thats been true for an entire fucking decade now. Seems to me that you never overclocked anything, ever, and are using lots and lots of excuses now to rationalize your irrational fear of it ("idle task"
It is also significantly slower buck for buck in real life workloads.
Buck for buck? Are you on crack?
AMD wins the price/performance comparison. Intel wins the peak performance comparison.
Looks to me like you are practicing the big lie for your masters at Intel.
Yes, and thats peak.
The year SATA 3 was put into production, SSD's designs were reconfigured to saturated it, and those fusion I/O drives saturate their PCI lane bandwidth....
SATA 3 was and always will be shortsighted bullshit brought to you by a consortium of asshats intentionally trying to undercut feature demand in their desperate attempt to preserve the old guard.
In other words, it wants the anti-nuclear activists to have a voice.
The anti-nuclear activists have destroyed the prospects of widespread nuclear adoption in more than a few countries, including the United States.
The problem is that their voice has been the only god damned voice, so fuck em if they are crying now about not being able to continue to drown out any discussion.
In other news, Pew Research has denied receiving a National Security Letter demanding that they release a poll with the numbers 62%, 56% and 45%.
Well, sorry folks, it's only available in Australia. And we wonder why people are attempting to steal it? Seriously
Exactly. I could be convinced to pay $50/month for a streaming on-demand service if it had nearly everything -- to re-iterate, the key factors are:
(a) ON-DEMAND
(b) NEARLY EVERYTHING
Furthermore I propose that the content owners could offer this service at nearly no cost to themselves, by simply indemnifying subscribers from any and all legal and contractual repercussions if they are caught torrenting their content. $50/month in order to never get sued by members of the RIAA and MPAA.. I'll take it.