Indeed. There are a couple of companies with plans to set up shop directly in the middle of the ocean in order to maximize arbitrage opportunities between exchanges.
You really think algorithms that feed off of and fight each other on microsecond timescales, placing and then shorting more orders for shares of companies than exist in the entire world, reduce volatility?
I know for a fact that HFT's reduce the spread between BID and ASK because numerous studies have been done showing empirically that this is the case. This means that all the people that cry that they are "siphoning money off the market" and other such crap are full of shit. You are getting better BID's and ASK's because the HFT's are in the market, therefore their percentage of the transaction is just a few for a worthwhile service.
The New York Stock Exchange automated quote dissemination in 2003, and we use this change in market structure that increases AT as an exogenous instrument to measure the causal effect of AT on liquidity. For large stocks in particular, AT narrows spreads, reduces adverse selection, and reduces trade-related price discovery. The findings indicate that AT improves liquidity and enhances the informativeness of quotes.
Data and facts trumps FUD every day of the week in my book.
If you are talking about off-the-shelf solutions, then gigabit microwave is a happening reality. More than a few companies are more than happy to sell you (and the government) the stock equipment they offer for this. Just search the web for 'gigabit microwave backhaul' and MULTI-gigabit speeds will be in your face.
..and then quickly recovers. You seem to want to leave that part out.
The only problem is when the SEC gets involved and undoes transactions to protect the automated traders from the massive losses incurred by their incorrect valuation.
When someone questions you, you should question yourself, and verify what you are saying. When you do that, you might not repeatedly make an error that could have been avoided the second time.
The correct bill that provided this funding is in fact the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So says the White House. So says the energy department. So said Obama when he urged congress to pass the bill.
(Reliable) citation, or you just made these numbers up. And that doesn't mean a link to some blog that made the numbers up themselves, either. It means a link to an irrefutable source.
When the official source of this information is the government itself, on the official websites which tracks this stuff, which never leaves out any of its voting.. it makes you look like an idiot for not automatically going there where you should have known to go.
Now here is an idea.. instead of pretending to be smart by asking for a citation.. prove that you are smart by actually watching what the government is actually doing through the most authoritative channel possible.. the public one that has never once editorialize.. never once given an opinion.. the one you apparently didnt fucking know about proving that you are just a sheep.
Now, please explain why you dont want this to be a partisan issue.. it became a partisan issue when the Democrats rammed it through both houses of congress without bipartisan support.
The Republican politicians who voted for the energy policy act of 2007 were for sale. And like any good investment, they paid off, leaving somebody else to hold the bill.
Lets take a look at the Senate roll call on the bill that actually gave them this money, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
If you think that's a LONG time, consider that mankind was traversing oceans 500 years ago.
1903 we first took flight.
1942 we flew the first operational jet fighter.
1961 we put the first man in space.
1969 we put the first man on the moon.
1971 we put the first space station in orbit.
1980 we put the first re-usable vehicle into space.
Today there are over a dozen private companies with space flight capability.
500 years from now? You can't even begin to imagine what technology will be available. The only thing that you can be sure of is that it will look like magic.
They build ever more accurate models, and test them for their ability to make predictions.
There are now dozens of supercomputers that have been built for the purpose of climate modeling, and on those, hundreds of different climate models have been run.
Now please tell us which one of those hundreds of models shows the best skill at prediction.
Surely we know which model that is.. and surely we know which supercomputers were involved in the simulations.. and surely future funding for bigger and better supercomputers is going towards the refinement of only the best models..
A citation indicating which model shows the best skill at prediction should be pretty easy given these facts. You don't have one because their prediction skill isnt what is being tested.. its their fitting skill that is tested as a proxy for prediction. They dont wait to see which models show skill at prediction.. they put in for new funding for larger supercomputers immediately after they can show that they can fit the data.
having a sixpack of 1.5L water bottles and a canister with extra fuel in the trunk?
What makes you think that either or both of these is sufficient to save your life?
A couple of gallons of extra fuel doesnt mean shit if you are several hundred kilometers away from the nearest anything, and you also dont know which direction to go because the map is bullshit.
7.5L of water isnt even a 2 day supply when you are in the desert.
The Apple apologists are suggesting that you shouldn't trust a map application, but should somehow magically trust other map sources.
The flaw in this thinking is that if a popular mapping company was selling paper maps at local gas stations that sent you in the wrong direction into the middle of nowhere, then we would also expect a government office to come forth and announce the serious risks associated with trusting that particular paper map.
On top of this, the iPhone maps are now different than the one they used to provide.. the old one was of much better quality. So a person may have come to trust the maps built into their iPhone because they were of good quality, but now suddenly they arent of good quality even though its the same damn iPhone. That "upgrade" was actually a full-blown downgrade.
So yes, we expect the government to announce the risks associated with trusting Apple's maps, because not only are they no longer good maps, Apple after the fact went and edited everyones existing maps to be of much worse quality.
Wrong - government spending has in fact gone down (at least this past year and in 2010, but had an uptick in 2011 - and yes, that is the conservative think tank heritage foundation, so not liberal news).
Why would you go to a think tank when the numbers are public information?
..did you do that, but those numbers didn't jive with the story you wanted to tell?
Being introverted is different from being depressed.
No shit Sherlock. Doesn't defeat the point, does it?
Now tell us, why isn't someone that is happy all the time not considered sick?
Apparently being locked in an emotional or behavioral state is only evidence of a problem if its not an emotional or behavioral state on the approved list.
They use manual labor because humans can be trained faster than automation can be set up. If I hand you a design and contract you do build it, the fastest way for you to get the first products out the door is to use humans. In quickly advancing industries like mobile devices, you can't stay on the leading edge and also use automation.
First he said "This is soooo wrong" and then attempted to use a specific counter-example as a general disproof. I don't know where you went to school, but I'd lay odds that it was in America, because your logical abilities is atrocious in the way that you not only didnt notice, but then actually repeated his attempt.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. There are a couple of companies with plans to set up shop directly in the middle of the ocean in order to maximize arbitrage opportunities between exchanges.
You really think algorithms that feed off of and fight each other on microsecond timescales, placing and then shorting more orders for shares of companies than exist in the entire world, reduce volatility?
I know for a fact that HFT's reduce the spread between BID and ASK because numerous studies have been done showing empirically that this is the case. This means that all the people that cry that they are "siphoning money off the market" and other such crap are full of shit. You are getting better BID's and ASK's because the HFT's are in the market, therefore their percentage of the transaction is just a few for a worthwhile service.
Here is one citation and if you want the PDF, try here.
The New York Stock Exchange automated quote dissemination in 2003, and we use this change in market structure that increases AT as an exogenous instrument to measure the causal effect of AT on liquidity. For large stocks in particular, AT narrows spreads, reduces adverse selection, and reduces trade-related price discovery. The findings indicate that AT improves liquidity and enhances the informativeness of quotes.
Data and facts trumps FUD every day of the week in my book.
If you are talking about off-the-shelf solutions, then gigabit microwave is a happening reality. More than a few companies are more than happy to sell you (and the government) the stock equipment they offer for this. Just search the web for 'gigabit microwave backhaul' and MULTI-gigabit speeds will be in your face.
..and then quickly recovers. You seem to want to leave that part out.
The only problem is when the SEC gets involved and undoes transactions to protect the automated traders from the massive losses incurred by their incorrect valuation.
You have the wrong funding, not me.
When someone questions you, you should question yourself, and verify what you are saying. When you do that, you might not repeatedly make an error that could have been avoided the second time.
The correct bill that provided this funding is in fact the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So says the White House. So says the energy department. So said Obama when he urged congress to pass the bill.
Where I went to school, you found out which one was correct, and then used the correct one.
..and amazingly, even thought you didnt know what you are talking about, you are now +5 informative. I commend you for realizing your error.
Now, what does this +5 informative mod tell us about political moderations on slashdot?
(Reliable) citation, or you just made these numbers up. And that doesn't mean a link to some blog that made the numbers up themselves, either. It means a link to an irrefutable source.
When the official source of this information is the government itself, on the official websites which tracks this stuff, which never leaves out any of its voting.. it makes you look like an idiot for not automatically going there where you should have known to go.
Senate Vote
House Vote
Now here is an idea.. instead of pretending to be smart by asking for a citation.. prove that you are smart by actually watching what the government is actually doing through the most authoritative channel possible.. the public one that has never once editorialize.. never once given an opinion.. the one you apparently didnt fucking know about proving that you are just a sheep.
1. Nuclear war will cause 500 years from now to look like a bad case of Dark Ages
Or, maybe even if we have a full scale nuclear war this year.. that in 500 years we will still have technology far more advanced than we have today.
But I'm sure you have a better approach?
Yes, my approach is to not to label things that havent been tested as 'ever more accurate.'
But hey... what do I know.. its not like their lack of honesty isnt the reason that I distrust these fucks.
Please don't make this a partisan thread.
Lets take a look at the Senate roll call on the bill that actually gave them this money, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
Democrats - 55 yeas - 0 nays
Republicans - 3 yeas - 38 nays
Independents - 2 yeas - 0 nays (one is an "Independent Democrat")
Now lets take a look at the House roll call on this bill:
Democrats - 244 yeas - 11 nays
Republicans - 0 yeas - 177 nays
Now, please explain why you dont want this to be a partisan issue.. it became a partisan issue when the Democrats rammed it through both houses of congress without bipartisan support.
The Republican politicians who voted for the energy policy act of 2007 were for sale. And like any good investment, they paid off, leaving somebody else to hold the bill.
Lets take a look at the Senate roll call on the bill that actually gave them this money, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
Democrats - 55 yeas - 0 nays
Republicans - 3 yeas - 38 nays
Independents - 2 yeas - 0 nays (one is an "Independent Democrat")
Now lets take a look at the House roll call on this bill:
Democrats - 244 yeas - 11 nays
Republicans - 0 yeas - 177 nays
Yet again the Democrats blame the Republicans for what the Democrats did all by themselves.
If you think that's a LONG time, consider that mankind was traversing oceans 500 years ago.
1903 we first took flight.
1942 we flew the first operational jet fighter.
1961 we put the first man in space.
1969 we put the first man on the moon.
1971 we put the first space station in orbit.
1980 we put the first re-usable vehicle into space.
Today there are over a dozen private companies with space flight capability.
500 years from now? You can't even begin to imagine what technology will be available. The only thing that you can be sure of is that it will look like magic.
They build ever more accurate models, and test them for their ability to make predictions.
There are now dozens of supercomputers that have been built for the purpose of climate modeling, and on those, hundreds of different climate models have been run.
Now please tell us which one of those hundreds of models shows the best skill at prediction.
Surely we know which model that is.. and surely we know which supercomputers were involved in the simulations.. and surely future funding for bigger and better supercomputers is going towards the refinement of only the best models..
A citation indicating which model shows the best skill at prediction should be pretty easy given these facts. You don't have one because their prediction skill isnt what is being tested.. its their fitting skill that is tested as a proxy for prediction. They dont wait to see which models show skill at prediction.. they put in for new funding for larger supercomputers immediately after they can show that they can fit the data.
having a sixpack of 1.5L water bottles and a canister with extra fuel in the trunk?
What makes you think that either or both of these is sufficient to save your life?
A couple of gallons of extra fuel doesnt mean shit if you are several hundred kilometers away from the nearest anything, and you also dont know which direction to go because the map is bullshit.
7.5L of water isnt even a 2 day supply when you are in the desert.
Its exactly this.
The Apple apologists are suggesting that you shouldn't trust a map application, but should somehow magically trust other map sources.
The flaw in this thinking is that if a popular mapping company was selling paper maps at local gas stations that sent you in the wrong direction into the middle of nowhere, then we would also expect a government office to come forth and announce the serious risks associated with trusting that particular paper map.
On top of this, the iPhone maps are now different than the one they used to provide.. the old one was of much better quality. So a person may have come to trust the maps built into their iPhone because they were of good quality, but now suddenly they arent of good quality even though its the same damn iPhone. That "upgrade" was actually a full-blown downgrade.
So yes, we expect the government to announce the risks associated with trusting Apple's maps, because not only are they no longer good maps, Apple after the fact went and edited everyones existing maps to be of much worse quality.
Lets not forget when he was picking and eating his own toe jam in a public lecture.
Wrong - government spending has in fact gone down (at least this past year and in 2010, but had an uptick in 2011 - and yes, that is the conservative think tank heritage foundation, so not liberal news).
Why would you go to a think tank when the numbers are public information?
..did you do that, but those numbers didn't jive with the story you wanted to tell?
2008 outlays: $2.98 trillion
2010 outlays: $3.46 trillion
2012 outlays: $3.60 trillion
Note how I left out the years that you say are "uptick", yet still its nothing but significant "up ticking"
Introversion is not unhealthy.
Neither is depression.
Being introverted is different from being depressed.
No shit Sherlock. Doesn't defeat the point, does it?
Now tell us, why isn't someone that is happy all the time not considered sick?
Apparently being locked in an emotional or behavioral state is only evidence of a problem if its not an emotional or behavioral state on the approved list.
The present economy is growing in leaps and bounds leaving workers in the dust.
How is this insightful? Its wrong.
Our GDP growth is currently a dismal 1.7% annual.
Government spending is growing by leaps and bounds though.. but thats clearly not what he meant.
Ah yes...
Someone who is depressed all the time is obviously sick, but someone who is happy all the time isnt sick.
This is the same sort of bullshit logic that labels introverts as somehow broken.
They use manual labor because humans can be trained faster than automation can be set up. If I hand you a design and contract you do build it, the fastest way for you to get the first products out the door is to use humans. In quickly advancing industries like mobile devices, you can't stay on the leading edge and also use automation.
He provided a counterexample.
First he said "This is soooo wrong" and then attempted to use a specific counter-example as a general disproof. I don't know where you went to school, but I'd lay odds that it was in America, because your logical abilities is atrocious in the way that you not only didnt notice, but then actually repeated his attempt.
Robots are replacing workers everywhere and we need a new economy to deal with the situation.
Perhaps a little of both?