an investor may be prepared to pay 1.25 for a share, but you are offering to sell for 1.20 -- instead of the investor paying only 1.20, the HFT jumps in, buys for 1.20 and sells for 1.25, pocketing the difference
Nope. The exchange would match all orders until the 1.25 was filled, including your 1.20 offer _at_ 1.20 -- the investor would save 0.05 per share for the percentage that your offer covered. HFT, like the rest of the world, would only see the trade.
the stock exchanges like having large number of quotes, as they charge for trades, so the more the better
More quotes != more trades. I could flood the market with offers to buy AAPL for $1 and not a single one would ever get matched. There are markets that are considering a tax on trade-quote ratios that are too low. In the case above, I don't believe a single quote was ever hit so in a market with minimum trade-quote ratios, this behavior would be taxed out of existence.
For the second case, that is not the definition of front-running. Front-running is when a broker executes trades for its own benefit based on knowing what its customer's plan to do and is illegal.
What you've described is someone/something taking on risk and providing liquidity for a small fee.
It's also not a backdoor fee. It costs money to trade on the exchange -- that's how they make money and cover their costs. I know I notice the $8.95 it costs me to make a trade (I would much rather pay fractions of a cent per share).
You also solve no problems with a trading lag. If you have one, the race is still to see who can get first in line but you just force all the incoming traffic to be at "N time" intervals. Trading has always been about the race in some manner. It's like Christmas shopping in the US -- if you aren't first in line, don't expect the best deals.
In terms of productivity (especially w.r.t. the severe productivity declines incurred beyond 40 hrs mentioned earlier in the article), 4 people @ 50 hrs/wk is probably less than 5 people @ 40 hrs/wk. Beyond that, it's up to those in charge to decide if they want to take on the (costs of an) extra employee for more long-term productivity or continue with the short-term productivity they currently have.
The primary focus of the article is more of a call to arms for the worker to keep a 40-hour work week for their own sanity (note the title: Why We Have to Go Back to a 40-Hour Work Week to Keep Our Sanity). If businesses and workers want to do otherwise, it's on them. This article provides justification for the worker to push back (or to find a place with better conditions).
... the big box retailers selling Honeywell products made a statement and pulled Honeywell products from their shelves. It sends a nice message: "You don't like competition? Fine, don't compete."
Ironically there are two straw men here. Scott Adams is the straw man of engineers being libertarians and from TFA, the Dilbert comic strip is Adams' straw man.
It is an admission of guilt but the problem is you don't know what crime the contents of the drive showed he committed.
He _could_ have had 10,000 illegally downloaded mp3s and didn't want to fork over billions to the RIAA.
That's manager-speak for "will you take a 36% pay decrease until we're profitable." Assuming the hourly rate *with overtime*, you're losing out on 22.5 hours of pay (15 hours @ time-and-a-half). Considering I value my 5-9 time more than my 9-5 time, it would be an even bigger pay cut in my opinion.
If you believe the company will become profitable *and* compensate you accordingly, make the appropriate gamble.
Using the Presidents up to Reagan, the odds were good that a President elected in a year ending in zero would die in office -- Jefferson, Monroe, and Teddy Roosevelt didn't but WH Harrison, Lincoln, Garfield, Harding, FDR, and Kennedy all did. If the pattern holds true, expect the winner of the 2020 election to die in office.
I think the fact that GW was President means we're in a Bizarro Universe...
There have been 6 perfect games in the past 20 years in MLB. In those 20 years, there have been approximately 48,000 games -- so a 1/8000 chance of it happening since 1990.
If you consider the entire history (or even the 130 years since the first one), there have only been 18. I have no numbers on the total number of games played in that time span, but I would venture to say the chances are much worse than 1/8000.
You could probably assume that the 2K10 players themselves were doing whatever they could to increase their chances as well (like a Yankees v Nationals matchup). If 2K Sports really wanted surge in sales, they should've offered $10M for a perfect game against the Yankees.
IANAL but if you ever need to take part in a lawsuit against them, you may not want to be on record as not accepting the fix when they presented it to you. If you're truly that concerned about it, then you probably shouldn't be driving a Toyota or, as the most extreme, be driving a car with many electronic components.
I'm reminded of a time in college when I ran a web site that hosted a forum among other things (about 10 years ago). Someone posted some comments as the president of the university and a couple days later I got a call from his office. While they would've legally been allowed to do all sorts of things to me, they posed the simplest question: "Will you remove those comments?" They even prefaced it with "we openly support your and your users' rights to free speech."
I'm curious if they even asked her to take it down with the trade-off from the school being that they will audit the teacher to verify the allegations.
Kudos to you. You also have the benefit of learning your students' tendencies in code. I failed an assignment with a note from the professor that basically said "what the hell?" It was my first thought as well but for another reason -- it wasn't my code. I went to retrieve my original from my network account and my profile had been erased. If I remember correctly, the prof gave me full credit for the assignment largely because I had talked to him about how I had found another algorithm online (implemented it myself) that was 20% more efficient but was not valid for the assignment (it wasn't A*). I have no idea if someone else actually stole it and turned it in (or if it was some fluke with the server) but I imagine he would've failed the student that turned in the other solution...
It's easy to tell who cheats in life. Those who are successful and do little work cheat while those who do all the extra work to take up the slack do not.
This isn't cheating. It's effectively calling a O(n) lifestyle cheating because someone else is living a O(n!) life. Although I will concede the point that you cheated your way to a score of 2 despite the fact that I did "all the extra work" by using appropriate punctuation and will undoubtedly be at zero forever. Such is life.
Slashdot Mirror
an investor may be prepared to pay 1.25 for a share, but you are offering to sell for 1.20 -- instead of the investor paying only 1.20, the HFT jumps in, buys for 1.20 and sells for 1.25, pocketing the difference
Nope. The exchange would match all orders until the 1.25 was filled, including your 1.20 offer _at_ 1.20 -- the investor would save 0.05 per share for the percentage that your offer covered. HFT, like the rest of the world, would only see the trade.
the stock exchanges like having large number of quotes, as they charge for trades, so the more the better
More quotes != more trades. I could flood the market with offers to buy AAPL for $1 and not a single one would ever get matched. There are markets that are considering a tax on trade-quote ratios that are too low. In the case above, I don't believe a single quote was ever hit so in a market with minimum trade-quote ratios, this behavior would be taxed out of existence.
The Ouya wasn't scheduled to ship until March 2013 so, assuming you didn't post this next year, there's still time for them to be late.
Or take it only a half step further, breed it, and see the finished product.
For the second case, that is not the definition of front-running. Front-running is when a broker executes trades for its own benefit based on knowing what its customer's plan to do and is illegal. What you've described is someone/something taking on risk and providing liquidity for a small fee. It's also not a backdoor fee. It costs money to trade on the exchange -- that's how they make money and cover their costs. I know I notice the $8.95 it costs me to make a trade (I would much rather pay fractions of a cent per share). You also solve no problems with a trading lag. If you have one, the race is still to see who can get first in line but you just force all the incoming traffic to be at "N time" intervals. Trading has always been about the race in some manner. It's like Christmas shopping in the US -- if you aren't first in line, don't expect the best deals.
No Futurama reference? Shame on you.
When can I co-lo at Blizzard?
... I yell "LeRoy Jenkins!" ??
In terms of productivity (especially w.r.t. the severe productivity declines incurred beyond 40 hrs mentioned earlier in the article), 4 people @ 50 hrs/wk is probably less than 5 people @ 40 hrs/wk. Beyond that, it's up to those in charge to decide if they want to take on the (costs of an) extra employee for more long-term productivity or continue with the short-term productivity they currently have. The primary focus of the article is more of a call to arms for the worker to keep a 40-hour work week for their own sanity (note the title: Why We Have to Go Back to a 40-Hour Work Week to Keep Our Sanity ). If businesses and workers want to do otherwise, it's on them. This article provides justification for the worker to push back (or to find a place with better conditions).
... or in base 4.
Interesting critique. I obviously missed the dimensions that were released in the two linked articles... Care to share them?
... the big box retailers selling Honeywell products made a statement and pulled Honeywell products from their shelves. It sends a nice message: "You don't like competition? Fine, don't compete."
Our enemies will create drones to enter the drones in our drones. It'll be a hit movie for our drone overlords.
Ironically there are two straw men here. Scott Adams is the straw man of engineers being libertarians and from TFA, the Dilbert comic strip is Adams' straw man.
It is an admission of guilt but the problem is you don't know what crime the contents of the drive showed he committed. He _could_ have had 10,000 illegally downloaded mp3s and didn't want to fork over billions to the RIAA.
That's manager-speak for "will you take a 36% pay decrease until we're profitable." Assuming the hourly rate *with overtime*, you're losing out on 22.5 hours of pay (15 hours @ time-and-a-half). Considering I value my 5-9 time more than my 9-5 time, it would be an even bigger pay cut in my opinion. If you believe the company will become profitable *and* compensate you accordingly, make the appropriate gamble.
The exchanges already charge a fee for every transaction for those who participate. You didn't think that was free, did you??
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/04/trash-collecting-entrepreneur-squashed.html
$109,533 in annual compensation -- not bad if you ask me but they're going on strike over it...
I think the fact that GW was President means we're in a Bizarro Universe...
It's almost as if "2K" is part of the company's name...
If you consider the entire history (or even the 130 years since the first one), there have only been 18. I have no numbers on the total number of games played in that time span, but I would venture to say the chances are much worse than 1/8000.
You could probably assume that the 2K10 players themselves were doing whatever they could to increase their chances as well (like a Yankees v Nationals matchup). If 2K Sports really wanted surge in sales, they should've offered $10M for a perfect game against the Yankees.
No one gets to first base. Surprised more Slashdotters didn't submit entries...
(ducks and cover)
IANAL but if you ever need to take part in a lawsuit against them, you may not want to be on record as not accepting the fix when they presented it to you. If you're truly that concerned about it, then you probably shouldn't be driving a Toyota or, as the most extreme, be driving a car with many electronic components.
I'm reminded of a time in college when I ran a web site that hosted a forum among other things (about 10 years ago). Someone posted some comments as the president of the university and a couple days later I got a call from his office. While they would've legally been allowed to do all sorts of things to me, they posed the simplest question: "Will you remove those comments?" They even prefaced it with "we openly support your and your users' rights to free speech." I'm curious if they even asked her to take it down with the trade-off from the school being that they will audit the teacher to verify the allegations.
Kudos to you. You also have the benefit of learning your students' tendencies in code. I failed an assignment with a note from the professor that basically said "what the hell?" It was my first thought as well but for another reason -- it wasn't my code. I went to retrieve my original from my network account and my profile had been erased. If I remember correctly, the prof gave me full credit for the assignment largely because I had talked to him about how I had found another algorithm online (implemented it myself) that was 20% more efficient but was not valid for the assignment (it wasn't A*). I have no idea if someone else actually stole it and turned it in (or if it was some fluke with the server) but I imagine he would've failed the student that turned in the other solution...
It's easy to tell who cheats in life. Those who are successful and do little work cheat while those who do all the extra work to take up the slack do not.
This isn't cheating. It's effectively calling a O(n) lifestyle cheating because someone else is living a O(n!) life. Although I will concede the point that you cheated your way to a score of 2 despite the fact that I did "all the extra work" by using appropriate punctuation and will undoubtedly be at zero forever. Such is life.