I don't know what you're trying to say there. From my perspective, GSM has been awesome. It meant that I could use one mobile handset in most of the world. There are standard codes for controlling network features (call waiting, forwarding, call restrictions, etc.). Roaming and swapping in a local SIM are both simple. GSM was a huge success for consumers.
Funny thing is, I had a 60GB DeskStar, and it ran non-stop for eight years powering my router/DNS/proxy box. Did I just luck out, or was it a particular revision that had the issues?
I doubt they've flown it. They probably have a prototype they plan to fly, and a pre-written press release to print the moment it flies. They accidentally published it early, and had to pull it. Similar things have happened with other parts of various space programs.
Leaving Viet Nam one time (I was there seeing my wife's family), they selected my flight for pat-downs. They had a guy to pat down guys and a woman to pat down women. But when I got to the front of the queue, the woman gestured to me. I looked at her like "WTF?" but she kept gesturing. I wasn't going to argue, because she had a gun and I didn't, so I went over. I swear that cougar copped a good feel! She didn't pat me down - she groped me all over! Damn corrupt government employees! (I don't think I've been mentally damaged by the experience. I'm not scared of airports or flying. But it was disconcerting at the time, and funny to think about later.)
Haha - don't you remember when the mechanical mouse was also "perfect" and the optical mouse was an unreliable gimmick that needed a mousepad with a funny pattern? Or before that, when you'd have to be a wimp to use a mouse at all? Any mouse gives me sore ring and little fingers, and a sore wrist. Give me a pen tablet any day!
You obviously don't understand GST credits. If I buy something at $40 wholesale and pay $4 in GST, when I sell it to you for $50 + $5 GST, I give the government $1 and claim a GST credit for the other $4 - it's not like the old wholesale taxes.
Millions are made by that "black art" of yours, but you don't know, and how should you.
Yeah, and then they lose it again, because they're clowns - look at the current state of Timber Hill.
I think grandparent's gripe is with this: what's the purpose of such a HF company? Why do we allow them to leech away the money that could go to something actually useful?
Keeps the price fairer - if market makers weren't all clamouring for your trade, it might cost you $5 beyond the fair price instead of the $1 you pay because we're all trying to undercut each other. It's competition in action.
WTF? You don't know the difference between hedge funds and market makers? I know the media likes to beat up on the finance industry as a whole, but not all are alike. Fund managers are often no better than diviners or soothsayers. They think they have some special, magical insight, but most of the time you'd do just as well randomly choosing stocks. That has nothing to do with what I do. I help keep derivative prices fair and liquid.
You're an idiot and you don't know what market making is. The prices options trade at are so close to the theoretical fair price that there is very little money to be made on each trade - often only cents. To keep the company in the black while paying a bunch of talented developers and network engineers, you have to make as many trades as possible. The reason for cutting down latency is so that we can snap up that 80c before anyone else.
Maybe you're not thinking about market making - maybe you're thinking about those clowns trying to game each others' algos on NASDAQ. The guys who place orders and delete them faster than they could ever trade just to see how the other guys' algos react, and have "geniuses" talking crap about how foolproof their theory of predicting stock prices falling is, and basically treat trading as a black art. They serve no useful purpose, and just create extra noise in the data feeds that need to be processed. I don't think they really do a great deal of harm most of the time - most of the money they make and lose is just being passed around between each other. They're all a big circle jerk.
You can't lump all HF traders together. (And for the record, I'm a geek: I design, develop and support the systems; I don't sit on the dest trading.)
That might let you attack investment banks and hedge funds who are communicating with their brokers over the Internet or VPNs like BT Radianz, but in that situation, it's nothing more than a regular Internet DOS attack. It won't affect real HF traders. If you're HF, your gear is colocated with the broker or exchange, and you use point-to-point links to control it from your office. Attacks would be noticed and attackers identified, as it would have to be an inside job.
At least the PAK-FA can get off the ground, and it's fire control system is still vaporware, and it's using older engines from the Su-27 family of fighters. The truth is that neither Russia nor China have the resources to build anything like the F-22.
That's why Russia is increasingly getting India to lend assistance in developing military hardware. It's delivering results, too - look at the performance of Brahmos missiles.
F35 isn't fully operational yet, and F117 is more of a tactical strike aircraft than a fighter (the designation was intended to be confusing because of the cold war, and also because the best pilots supposedly don't like to be seen flying things called "bombers").
I would say that buying Microsoft stock is an investment that you expect to make some return on in the form of dividends. Whether that's a sound investment is another thing entirely. It's not an absolute gamble as investing in Apple or Dell would be.
Yes, I did mean drilling companies specifically. Energy and resource companies tend to pay dividends, but the companies that do actual drilling and resource exploration don't.
Buying stock in a company that doesn't pay dividends is just gambling - you're buying in the hope that you can find a chump who'll pay more to buy it off you at some point in the future. You can only make money by selling the stock. Apple isn't unique in this regard: most major tech companies and oil drilling companies don't pay dividends. But to me it just looks like a house of cards. You're just gambling on investor confidence in a company.
Banning laptops in class would infringe on students' rights to attempt first post on every slashdot story! We can't let the trolls win! You aren't a troll sympathiser, are you?
Coffee roasters do not have differing needs every 100ms.
You're perfectly right - the only people who need to trade every 100ms are the market makers, and that's purely because the margin on each trade is so tiny that there's no money to be made if you aren't picking up that many trades.
You and most of/. really have no clue how market making works, HF or not. Some people have reasons to buy derivatives (futures and options). A coffee roaster might want a call option on raw beans to protect themselves from price rises, and likewise, a coffee grower might want a put option to protect against falling prices. If you estimate the volatility of the underlying asset's price, you can calculate a theoretical fair price for a derivatives.
Now suppose I use my model to calculate a particular option is worth $10. If the market is wide open, I could offer to buy it for $5 or sell it for $15 - making a market with a spread of $10. In this situation, I could make $5 of profit, or "edge", on each option I trade. But you might decide you can afford to quote $6/$14 - now you'll pick up all the trades with an edge of $4. I won't want you to get all the action, so I'll have to quote inside your spread - maybe $6.50/$13.50 - and other people will get in on the action. As the number of market makers increases, the spreads tighten, and the people who actually have a purpose for the options get a better deal.
The exchanges take a percentage of each transaction, so they want to attract as many traders as possible. Part of this is offering narrow spreads on derivatives. To make the spreads narrow, they will try to attract market makers. This is often done by offering rebates on fees to people quoting sufficiently narrow spreads for a high proportion of the time.
In a liquid market, the spreads will be very narrow, and thus the edge on each transaction will be tiny. As a market maker, you need to be making enough to pay your traders and software developers, so you need to make sure you get as many of the trades as possible. Latency is the killer, so you need to do anything you can do to keep it down. Co-locating your system at the exchange costs you money for rack space, but it will give you lower latency, and therefore more chance of being first in and getting the trades. Everyone does this now, so it's simply a cost of business if you want to make money. Beyond this, you need to employ smart developers and IT people to keep making your system faster. Everyone is doing this now, so at it's like an arms race - you have to keep getting faster or you will lose out and not get the trades you need to make money.
The upshot of this for everyone else is that derivative prices are fairer - when you want to hedge, you won't be incurring much cost over the theoretical fair price of the instrument.
Slashdot Mirror
Have sex, you idiot. That's the best thing to do before going to sleep.
I don't know what you're trying to say there. From my perspective, GSM has been awesome. It meant that I could use one mobile handset in most of the world. There are standard codes for controlling network features (call waiting, forwarding, call restrictions, etc.). Roaming and swapping in a local SIM are both simple. GSM was a huge success for consumers.
It's Korean - not Japanese. Get it right.
Funny thing is, I had a 60GB DeskStar, and it ran non-stop for eight years powering my router/DNS/proxy box. Did I just luck out, or was it a particular revision that had the issues?
How's that better? A machine can easily strip the part after the plus sign.
I doubt they've flown it. They probably have a prototype they plan to fly, and a pre-written press release to print the moment it flies. They accidentally published it early, and had to pull it. Similar things have happened with other parts of various space programs.
Leaving Viet Nam one time (I was there seeing my wife's family), they selected my flight for pat-downs. They had a guy to pat down guys and a woman to pat down women. But when I got to the front of the queue, the woman gestured to me. I looked at her like "WTF?" but she kept gesturing. I wasn't going to argue, because she had a gun and I didn't, so I went over. I swear that cougar copped a good feel! She didn't pat me down - she groped me all over! Damn corrupt government employees! (I don't think I've been mentally damaged by the experience. I'm not scared of airports or flying. But it was disconcerting at the time, and funny to think about later.)
Haha - don't you remember when the mechanical mouse was also "perfect" and the optical mouse was an unreliable gimmick that needed a mousepad with a funny pattern? Or before that, when you'd have to be a wimp to use a mouse at all? Any mouse gives me sore ring and little fingers, and a sore wrist. Give me a pen tablet any day!
There are lots of shills for the USA - they call themselves "patriots" and claim to support "freedom".
They probably doubled the security by using ROT26!
You obviously don't understand GST credits. If I buy something at $40 wholesale and pay $4 in GST, when I sell it to you for $50 + $5 GST, I give the government $1 and claim a GST credit for the other $4 - it's not like the old wholesale taxes.
Yeah, and then they lose it again, because they're clowns - look at the current state of Timber Hill.
Keeps the price fairer - if market makers weren't all clamouring for your trade, it might cost you $5 beyond the fair price instead of the $1 you pay because we're all trying to undercut each other. It's competition in action.
WTF? You don't know the difference between hedge funds and market makers? I know the media likes to beat up on the finance industry as a whole, but not all are alike. Fund managers are often no better than diviners or soothsayers. They think they have some special, magical insight, but most of the time you'd do just as well randomly choosing stocks. That has nothing to do with what I do. I help keep derivative prices fair and liquid.
You're an idiot and you don't know what market making is. The prices options trade at are so close to the theoretical fair price that there is very little money to be made on each trade - often only cents. To keep the company in the black while paying a bunch of talented developers and network engineers, you have to make as many trades as possible. The reason for cutting down latency is so that we can snap up that 80c before anyone else.
Maybe you're not thinking about market making - maybe you're thinking about those clowns trying to game each others' algos on NASDAQ. The guys who place orders and delete them faster than they could ever trade just to see how the other guys' algos react, and have "geniuses" talking crap about how foolproof their theory of predicting stock prices falling is, and basically treat trading as a black art. They serve no useful purpose, and just create extra noise in the data feeds that need to be processed. I don't think they really do a great deal of harm most of the time - most of the money they make and lose is just being passed around between each other. They're all a big circle jerk.
You can't lump all HF traders together. (And for the record, I'm a geek: I design, develop and support the systems; I don't sit on the dest trading.)
That might let you attack investment banks and hedge funds who are communicating with their brokers over the Internet or VPNs like BT Radianz, but in that situation, it's nothing more than a regular Internet DOS attack. It won't affect real HF traders. If you're HF, your gear is colocated with the broker or exchange, and you use point-to-point links to control it from your office. Attacks would be noticed and attackers identified, as it would have to be an inside job.
I work in this business, and trust me - we count nanoseconds. We would notice if "hackers" were introducing delays.
That's why Russia is increasingly getting India to lend assistance in developing military hardware. It's delivering results, too - look at the performance of Brahmos missiles.
F35 isn't fully operational yet, and F117 is more of a tactical strike aircraft than a fighter (the designation was intended to be confusing because of the cold war, and also because the best pilots supposedly don't like to be seen flying things called "bombers").
I would say that buying Microsoft stock is an investment that you expect to make some return on in the form of dividends. Whether that's a sound investment is another thing entirely. It's not an absolute gamble as investing in Apple or Dell would be.
Yes, I did mean drilling companies specifically. Energy and resource companies tend to pay dividends, but the companies that do actual drilling and resource exploration don't.
Buying stock in a company that doesn't pay dividends is just gambling - you're buying in the hope that you can find a chump who'll pay more to buy it off you at some point in the future. You can only make money by selling the stock. Apple isn't unique in this regard: most major tech companies and oil drilling companies don't pay dividends. But to me it just looks like a house of cards. You're just gambling on investor confidence in a company.
Banning laptops in class would infringe on students' rights to attempt first post on every slashdot story! We can't let the trolls win! You aren't a troll sympathiser, are you?
You're perfectly right - the only people who need to trade every 100ms are the market makers, and that's purely because the margin on each trade is so tiny that there's no money to be made if you aren't picking up that many trades.
You and most of /. really have no clue how market making works, HF or not. Some people have reasons to buy derivatives (futures and options). A coffee roaster might want a call option on raw beans to protect themselves from price rises, and likewise, a coffee grower might want a put option to protect against falling prices. If you estimate the volatility of the underlying asset's price, you can calculate a theoretical fair price for a derivatives.
Now suppose I use my model to calculate a particular option is worth $10. If the market is wide open, I could offer to buy it for $5 or sell it for $15 - making a market with a spread of $10. In this situation, I could make $5 of profit, or "edge", on each option I trade. But you might decide you can afford to quote $6/$14 - now you'll pick up all the trades with an edge of $4. I won't want you to get all the action, so I'll have to quote inside your spread - maybe $6.50/$13.50 - and other people will get in on the action. As the number of market makers increases, the spreads tighten, and the people who actually have a purpose for the options get a better deal.
The exchanges take a percentage of each transaction, so they want to attract as many traders as possible. Part of this is offering narrow spreads on derivatives. To make the spreads narrow, they will try to attract market makers. This is often done by offering rebates on fees to people quoting sufficiently narrow spreads for a high proportion of the time.
In a liquid market, the spreads will be very narrow, and thus the edge on each transaction will be tiny. As a market maker, you need to be making enough to pay your traders and software developers, so you need to make sure you get as many of the trades as possible. Latency is the killer, so you need to do anything you can do to keep it down. Co-locating your system at the exchange costs you money for rack space, but it will give you lower latency, and therefore more chance of being first in and getting the trades. Everyone does this now, so it's simply a cost of business if you want to make money. Beyond this, you need to employ smart developers and IT people to keep making your system faster. Everyone is doing this now, so at it's like an arms race - you have to keep getting faster or you will lose out and not get the trades you need to make money.
The upshot of this for everyone else is that derivative prices are fairer - when you want to hedge, you won't be incurring much cost over the theoretical fair price of the instrument.
They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.