...time to spam us all with another article on HFT.
it allowed the high frequency traders to peek at the ballots others were sending in to the newspaper before they arrived, in turn giving them the ability to cast their votes using information not yet available to the rest of the market.
Front running is not High Frequency Trading. The existence of front running is not an argument to limit "High Frequency Trading" any more than phishing is an argument to end high speed internet.
Until people can recognize the difference between front running (a biased ordering of particular market events) and high frequency trading (low latency response to available market data) then there really is no point in responding to this nonsense. Not as much fun as donning the tinfoil hat, I know...
The manner in which the team members and project leader treat its weakest member is a symptom of the team culture, and a mark of its health. If you treat people well, they respond – and that always shows in the results you produce.
So let's pen an article referring to said weakest members as "idiots" and "dummies".
As usual, tales of rigged markets and front running are equated with HFT, and modded up +5 by people who need to step back and take a deep breath. Please ponder the following points and think again.
1 Front running is what we call it when a market participant gets a peek at orders before they go to market. You could send your orders in on a post-it note on the back of a snail, and if that participant sees and acts on them before they go to market, that's still front running.
2 Flash trading is what we call it when an order is shown to a market participant for a brief moment of time before they go to market. Sounds like front running, right? Except that (at least for DirectEdge customers) you can flag your order to not be subject to flash trading. Why would anyone voluntarily subject their order to flash trading? Who knows - maybe they get a break in commission - the point is they can turn it off.
3 Rigging the market may also include self trading in an attempt to boost apparent volume at a price, or quoting prices you don't intend to be filled on to goose the market. Both of these practices are already illegal and well policed by the exchanges and the SEC.
4 The "liquidity" that everyone pooh-poohs is part of what makes things cost what they do. Introduce more bid-ask spread in the commodities markets, and the costs will go up for pretty much everything: bread, milk, gasoline, etc. HFT helps liquidity because it reduces the time for cheaper prices to percolate around the market.
5 HFT is there because the markets are largely FIFO, and the markets are FIFO because FIFO is unbiased. Can you think of a more unbiased match algo? Lots of people put forward some sort of time bucketed system, but it doesn't solve the problem of who gets filled when there are more buys than sells in a bucket or vice versa. Nor does it solve the problem of cross exchange trading where time buckets are not likely to be synced, and people deal with it by increasing the bid/ask spread they're willing to quote. (See #4.)
Sometimes, it really is more complex than "She's bought and paid for by HFT". Plus, if you can't bring yourself to take off the tinfoil hat, you might consider that opponents of HFT (like big banks) are precisely the ones who benefit if HFT goes away. Now back to your regularly scheduled screedy goodness.
Maybe this has greater applicability in robotics? It's probably cheaper to outfit a robot with a pair of these glasses that try to mimic the complex expressions of eye movements with tiny motors.
The crux of the issue is that social attitudes are in flux on this matter. If you don't give people leeway to change, they will likely harden their positions.
And if you give some people leeway to change (eg- Obama, Hilary) and deny leeway to others (Brendan Eich) you are being blatantly partisan and unfair.
I agree on that definition of front running. However, my point was that front running is not synonymous with HFT. I think this is an important point; already the calls are going out to slow down HFT trading in response to the discovery of front running per the original post.
I'm saying it won't help. You could require that all orders get submitted to BATS on post-it notes stuck to the backs of snails, but if someone is looking at the snails before the match engine and biasing the market around the order flow they see coming in, that is still front running.
Before you post an anti-HFT screed to Slashdot, ponder the question: Does the speed or frequency of the trading affect whether or not somebody is front running you? If the problem is that someone saw your order and acted on it before it went to execution, then the issue is with the absolute ordering of the events and not with the speed or frequency. There were front runners in the market long before electronic HFT trading came along.
A better term for what you're probably outraged about is flash trading.
It costs X to provision and maintain internet service, you charge Y > X to a customer every month, and you clear Y-X in profit. Why is this so fucking difficult?
I've always viewed Apple afficionados as having an overly inflated sense of self-superiority to everyone else in tech matters, but I've always chalked it up to self-justification for the premium they pay up for Apple products and their patented rectangles. If their premium goes instead towards taking bandwidth away from me or bidding up the cost to me, then I may no longer be able to resist my ever present urge to take their iWhatever and "accidentally" drop it in a toilet.
Science is settled until new contrary evidence comes along to unsettle it.
There is an obvious contextual reference here to the contemporary scientific debate raging around global warming. If I may push back against the OP's question for a moment: The question "is the science ever settled" is not framed in a useful way. I think it is more useful to ask "does the science ever prove a political position"? I frame it this way because typically, when partisans point out that "the science is settled" on some subject, what they are really trying to do is put the weight of scientific authority behind their political positions.
Furthermore, I think this has demonstrable, detrimental effect on science. There has been a recent uptick in global warming disbelief. The typical response to this kind of thing falls into one of two categories: either Americans are unwashed idiots or the effort to disseminate scientific knowledge is somehow flagging in the internet age. But there is a third explanation which receives little attention; namely, the relentless push by partisans to make science speak for particular political ends brings science itself into disrepute. In this view, rising skepticism of scientific consensus comes from backlash induced by, essentially, partisan bullying on scientific issues. With respect to global warming, people see partisans making statements attempting to link currently held scientific views to political ideas that run the gamut from signing bad treaties like Kyoto, adopting economically ruinous policies, or enriching crony operators of new "carbon" exchanges. And then they conclude that maybe the science wasn't all that necessary or important to these partisans after all.
I'm shocked that nobody has reminisced about the boxes of plastic transparencies and overhead projectors yet on this thread.
Physicists giving a talk used to struggle with finding an extension cord for the overhead projector instead of the right dongle for their laptop. The talk came in a box, and they used to fiddle with writing slides using transparency markers. You could write whatever equation you wanted!
It could have something to do with salinity. Typical seawater freezes at about -2 C because of the high salt content, but if the local salinity has dropped because of the introduction of a large amount of fresh meltwater then it might freeze closer to 0 C. Warming could lead to more meltwater, lower salinity and therefore more ice under certain specific conditions.
The article states that the crew is measuring both temperature and salinity, so we'll find out if the conditions are met and that is a possible explanation. I'm not holding my breath though...
A Method To Allow Device Insertions In Any Orientation
A device being any device that can be held in the hand between two fingers, too large to be grasped by two fingers yet small enough to be grasped by the whole hand, or too large to be grasped by a hand, an insertion being a process by which a device is brought close to another larger device with a receptacle and the first device placed into the receptacle to facilitate mutual operation, and orientation being the angular position of the first device relative to the second device along the common axis defined by the midpoint of the first device and the receptacle of the second device or being the skew position of the first device major or minor axis relative to the major or minor axis of the receptacle of the second device. This patent asserts a new method covering insertions of devices into receptacles of other devices in any orientation, and if it just works, whatever it is, you owe us a million dollars.
Lol- they didn't reprint the photographs in question in the original article. I guess ABC (Australian Broadcasting Service, the company in the URL of the OP) didn't want to pay a random Haitian photographer. They seem to have no problem paying Getty - a search for Getty on their site turns up lots of images.
I guess you have to demonstrate ownership AND be in the special club to get royalty payments.
In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?
This isn't an example of bad Samsung capitalizing on Apple's good ideas. This is about major corporations being encouraged to stick their flags in the obvious and make else everyone pay. Whether you pay Apple or whether you pay Samsung (who then has to pay Apple), you're paying up and up for a fucking rectangle and whatever else is in their catalog of the obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
At a time when tuition prices are rising faster than ever, why are we skimping on the most fundamental aspect of college?
Because many more able people want to teach than there are available positions.
:-) Indeed, there's no one more devoted to keeping it real than those brilliant Harvard intellectuals.
it allowed the high frequency traders to peek at the ballots others were sending in to the newspaper before they arrived, in turn giving them the ability to cast their votes using information not yet available to the rest of the market.
Front running is not High Frequency Trading. The existence of front running is not an argument to limit "High Frequency Trading" any more than phishing is an argument to end high speed internet.
Until people can recognize the difference between front running (a biased ordering of particular market events) and high frequency trading (low latency response to available market data) then there really is no point in responding to this nonsense. Not as much fun as donning the tinfoil hat, I know...
The manner in which the team members and project leader treat its weakest member is a symptom of the team culture, and a mark of its health. If you treat people well, they respond – and that always shows in the results you produce.
So let's pen an article referring to said weakest members as "idiots" and "dummies".
If enough people do take that tradeoff, eventually you won't ever be able to buy an ad free Fridge for $2000 because they'll stop making them.
I did read the article and was wondering the same thing.
As usual, tales of rigged markets and front running are equated with HFT, and modded up +5 by people who need to step back and take a deep breath. Please ponder the following points and think again.
1 Front running is what we call it when a market participant gets a peek at orders before they go to market. You could send your orders in on a post-it note on the back of a snail, and if that participant sees and acts on them before they go to market, that's still front running.
2 Flash trading is what we call it when an order is shown to a market participant for a brief moment of time before they go to market. Sounds like front running, right? Except that (at least for DirectEdge customers) you can flag your order to not be subject to flash trading. Why would anyone voluntarily subject their order to flash trading? Who knows - maybe they get a break in commission - the point is they can turn it off.
3 Rigging the market may also include self trading in an attempt to boost apparent volume at a price, or quoting prices you don't intend to be filled on to goose the market. Both of these practices are already illegal and well policed by the exchanges and the SEC.
4 The "liquidity" that everyone pooh-poohs is part of what makes things cost what they do. Introduce more bid-ask spread in the commodities markets, and the costs will go up for pretty much everything: bread, milk, gasoline, etc. HFT helps liquidity because it reduces the time for cheaper prices to percolate around the market.
5 HFT is there because the markets are largely FIFO, and the markets are FIFO because FIFO is unbiased. Can you think of a more unbiased match algo? Lots of people put forward some sort of time bucketed system, but it doesn't solve the problem of who gets filled when there are more buys than sells in a bucket or vice versa. Nor does it solve the problem of cross exchange trading where time buckets are not likely to be synced, and people deal with it by increasing the bid/ask spread they're willing to quote. (See #4.)
Sometimes, it really is more complex than "She's bought and paid for by HFT". Plus, if you can't bring yourself to take off the tinfoil hat, you might consider that opponents of HFT (like big banks) are precisely the ones who benefit if HFT goes away. Now back to your regularly scheduled screedy goodness.
Maybe this has greater applicability in robotics? It's probably cheaper to outfit a robot with a pair of these glasses that try to mimic the complex expressions of eye movements with tiny motors.
The flies need all the speed they can muster, to evade the even more deadly dead cat helicopter.
The crux of the issue is that social attitudes are in flux on this matter. If you don't give people leeway to change, they will likely harden their positions.
And if you give some people leeway to change (eg- Obama, Hilary) and deny leeway to others (Brendan Eich) you are being blatantly partisan and unfair.
I agree on that definition of front running. However, my point was that front running is not synonymous with HFT. I think this is an important point; already the calls are going out to slow down HFT trading in response to the discovery of front running per the original post.
I'm saying it won't help. You could require that all orders get submitted to BATS on post-it notes stuck to the backs of snails, but if someone is looking at the snails before the match engine and biasing the market around the order flow they see coming in, that is still front running.
Before you post an anti-HFT screed to Slashdot, ponder the question: Does the speed or frequency of the trading affect whether or not somebody is front running you? If the problem is that someone saw your order and acted on it before it went to execution, then the issue is with the absolute ordering of the events and not with the speed or frequency. There were front runners in the market long before electronic HFT trading came along.
A better term for what you're probably outraged about is flash trading.
From the article, Abash has been around for 57 years ?
Oculus HR obviously didn't get the memo yet to ignore guys over 30.
This has got to be one of the silliest concerns I have ever read, in the NYT no less. I've had a great laugh over this, thank you for making my day.
It costs X to provision and maintain internet service, you charge Y > X to a customer every month, and you clear Y-X in profit. Why is this so fucking difficult?
I've always viewed Apple afficionados as having an overly inflated sense of self-superiority to everyone else in tech matters, but I've always chalked it up to self-justification for the premium they pay up for Apple products and their patented rectangles. If their premium goes instead towards taking bandwidth away from me or bidding up the cost to me, then I may no longer be able to resist my ever present urge to take their iWhatever and "accidentally" drop it in a toilet.
Science is settled until new contrary evidence comes along to unsettle it.
There is an obvious contextual reference here to the contemporary scientific debate raging around global warming. If I may push back against the OP's question for a moment: The question "is the science ever settled" is not framed in a useful way. I think it is more useful to ask "does the science ever prove a political position"? I frame it this way because typically, when partisans point out that "the science is settled" on some subject, what they are really trying to do is put the weight of scientific authority behind their political positions.
Furthermore, I think this has demonstrable, detrimental effect on science. There has been a recent uptick in global warming disbelief. The typical response to this kind of thing falls into one of two categories: either Americans are unwashed idiots or the effort to disseminate scientific knowledge is somehow flagging in the internet age. But there is a third explanation which receives little attention; namely, the relentless push by partisans to make science speak for particular political ends brings science itself into disrepute. In this view, rising skepticism of scientific consensus comes from backlash induced by, essentially, partisan bullying on scientific issues. With respect to global warming, people see partisans making statements attempting to link currently held scientific views to political ideas that run the gamut from signing bad treaties like Kyoto, adopting economically ruinous policies, or enriching crony operators of new "carbon" exchanges. And then they conclude that maybe the science wasn't all that necessary or important to these partisans after all.
I'm shocked that nobody has reminisced about the boxes of plastic transparencies and overhead projectors yet on this thread.
Physicists giving a talk used to struggle with finding an extension cord for the overhead projector instead of the right dongle for their laptop. The talk came in a box, and they used to fiddle with writing slides using transparency markers. You could write whatever equation you wanted!
... we would stop loading up web browsers with "features" that only help content providers shove ever more ads and video down our gullets.
... and yet they're OK with the TSA sticking fingers up your bucket?
It could have something to do with salinity. Typical seawater freezes at about -2 C because of the high salt content, but if the local salinity has dropped because of the introduction of a large amount of fresh meltwater then it might freeze closer to 0 C. Warming could lead to more meltwater, lower salinity and therefore more ice under certain specific conditions.
The article states that the crew is measuring both temperature and salinity, so we'll find out if the conditions are met and that is a possible explanation. I'm not holding my breath though...
US Patent Pending
A Method To Allow Device Insertions In Any Orientation
A device being any device that can be held in the hand between two fingers, too large to be grasped by two fingers yet small enough to be grasped by the whole hand, or too large to be grasped by a hand, an insertion being a process by which a device is brought close to another larger device with a receptacle and the first device placed into the receptacle to facilitate mutual operation, and orientation being the angular position of the first device relative to the second device along the common axis defined by the midpoint of the first device and the receptacle of the second device or being the skew position of the first device major or minor axis relative to the major or minor axis of the receptacle of the second device. This patent asserts a new method covering insertions of devices into receptacles of other devices in any orientation, and if it just works, whatever it is, you owe us a million dollars.
NSA: Sheik Abdul Muhammad Hussein likes to look at boobies.
Sheik: The NSA is lying.
Follower #1: Yeah, the NSA is lying.
Follower #2: Boobies? Where's the boobies?
Lol- they didn't reprint the photographs in question in the original article. I guess ABC (Australian Broadcasting Service, the company in the URL of the OP) didn't want to pay a random Haitian photographer. They seem to have no problem paying Getty - a search for Getty on their site turns up lots of images.
I guess you have to demonstrate ownership AND be in the special club to get royalty payments.
In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?
This isn't an example of bad Samsung capitalizing on Apple's good ideas. This is about major corporations being encouraged to stick their flags in the obvious and make else everyone pay. Whether you pay Apple or whether you pay Samsung (who then has to pay Apple), you're paying up and up for a fucking rectangle and whatever else is in their catalog of the obvious.
Just remember the next time you fork over $12 for a movie ticket, who are you supporting with that money.