That's actually not true. There is an admin DNS sploit recently patched - one that was known about in other Unix-likes for years. Its only a matter of time before more show up.
Well hell, it's back. Eight years ago they killed it complete for ADC, now it seems back for premier and with restriction for select membership. But I guess $500 membership and a year wait is worth the 10-20% (what's that, $200 tops)? Yeah - sarcasm.
The mindset is fundamentally the same; FTA, one 'advantage' being pushed is the security... A variety of reputable sources have already pointed out that this is illusory. Windows flaws are exposed because tens-of-thousands of hackers are pounding on it. MacOS X has two orders of magnitude less hackers; but as it gains in popularity, so do people with malicious intent. MacOS X might have been based on Mach Unix, but MacOS security is NOT Unix. Just google MacOS X Security Flaws.
And don't forget, NeXT (I had one) wasn't totally secure. There were all sorts of sploits in DisplayPostscript, and sure it was dropped for OS X, it too never had the hoarde beating on it.
And the real benefit of the x86 architecture is now all those x86 hackers can move their expertise from Windows to MacOS.
The machine you mention is being pushed near cost under the "nice dock for your iPod." Apple got out of discounting volume ten years ago. From a source, still at Apple, when I asked about this was... "We can't afford to give stuff away."
Apple also got out of discounting hardware to developers... but that's another story.
Apple has never got it. Ever. It means Corporate or Enterprise IT. If you look at their history in dealing with Big companies, you see recurring mistakes over the past 15 years. Some examples... In the early '90s, Apple was IN BASF. One of the things BASF liked was Apple seemed to be actively supporting the platform. They chose to over look the lack of engineering tools for the great support Apple was giving them. Then Apple Europe restructed and all the close working relationship was dropped. By '95, Apple was pretty much out of every european production/manufacturing company.
I was working as an Apple developer for 10 years in engineering. Every WWDC I would argue (with the sci-eng evangelist; a position they found hard to staff) that incentives to VARs would not break into corporate IT. Productivity alone doesn't cut it. The world needs Apps, and Apple needed to bend over backward to support developers brave enough to try for that 1%. Suffices to say... the strategy has not changed. Incentives to VARs and pushing the illusory ease and security envelope.
My column is called "Personal Technology." I don't cover, or care about, corporate IT and its needs.
Walt
On Jan 4 2007, at 1:36 PM, Bernie wrote:
Not just power users will resist 2007. I'd say most corporate IT will be very slow in adopting it because of the new interface. Front- line desktop support cannot afford a radical shift in training either themselves or the hoardes of almost tech illiterate they in turn support.
Another big whack (not including performance and evil XML) is Office Automation. This too has changed; to the point that any enterprise that integrates internal IS applications with Office will be facing significant cost of re-write.
And if I remember what I read, the plug in architecture is different. Which will annoy anyone who uses offices applications as a platform to build applications. I used to write XLLs/XLAs; that I pretty much stopped on the last plug in change.
I was an Apple developer for 10 years. I lived through the 68k to PPC601 transition. Apple pushed the throughput of RISK vs CISC; but it really wasn't about throughput. Apple had a deal with Motorola, and it was getting expensive to push the envelope on 68k. Intel on the other hand continued to push the envelope on x86; so much so that the real architectural difference wrt pipelining and such became irrelevant. Every RISC pushing the envelope performance test from 93 to 96 was a lie. Intel hit the market with x86 chips that were outperforming the latest (non production) PPC line. Doesn't matter that the architecture was counter intuitive. And if you ever looked at the 604 and later architectures; they were HARDLY RISC. So I say again, by 96, the RISC/CISC argument was dead.
As a developer, I found one of the most irritating things about RISC chips (PPC or Sparc) to be the binaries that were 3x the sizes... and for what? With Apple specifically, producing a FAT binary was a total PITA. The Code Fragment Manager was a total mess; but a nice hack to attempt to support runtime architecture switching. Now.... did you know that originally there was the option of running both 68k and PPC in upgrade machines like the 630 that had 68k running at the same time PPC was going on the expansion card? There was also the possibility of running code the DSP... crap I forget that model... but Apple killed that too by not publishing the specifications and crippling CFM. Course this fun stuff was tied to specific Quadra models.
Anyway I digress; one point I forgot to make was the huge performance hit when trying to determine what architecture to run on in the attempt to support multiple architectures (via brk!)
People are missing the point of a US manned moon station. Public opinion. People don't care about robots. They don't care about L5 stations. They DO care about manned missions. Note that a few years back, public opinion was in the camp of Robots are cheaper... and with NASA failed Mars missions, this was pervasive. But things change. When China announced manned moon and Mars missions; NASA (Bush) policy did a 180. The Chinese CANNOT be the first to have a permanent colony anywhere because that would mean Communist China > Democratic America. So the space race is on again. In my opinion, the right thing for the wrong reason...
Your numbers are wrong. There are 30 million people in Canada - total. There are likely 50,000 Inuit people total. That said; they're already complaining about longer summers - or shorter winters - and more specifically about lack of goods being transported in the summer because its actually easier to transport accross snow then it is the big bog...
Any old Apple salt knows that Apple used to be VERY KEEN on personal publishing; and letting the world know what was going on through their Advanced Technology Group. One of the ultra cool things about ATG for years was seeing the cool stuff at WWDC...
And here is where Apple got burned.
Showing the cool stuff often meant exposing research and development to... Microsoft. There was an uncanny parallel between what was shown by the ATG at WWDC and Microsoft marketting press releases in the subsequent weeks. Microsoft won a lot of mindshare based on skunkworks stuff not developed there! And Apple management realized it.
Now before I get flagged as a troll and Apple fanboy; I'm not. I can site many examples of this from 90 to 95 - before ATG stopped presenting and was for the most part disolved. I got totally burned by OpenDoc and the phoenix of Steve.
As a side note, Microsoft still actively supports its think tank (though you rarely see anything commercial come of it), and Google lets you work on your own skunkworks 20% of your time (and get paid for it, but it belongs to Google.)
I agree; I didn't say VS was crap. Its a great tool; and they have some good brains behind it now (Blake Stone). But its not the best, and Microsoft isn't on the verge of solving some of these complex problems. Rich apps are often multi-tech solutions. Besides what is divided to client and server; implementation on both. For example, I've written apps that use vbs and js client side, coupled with activex controls, just to try bend around implementing a fat client. I've also maintained rich apps that try and do everything client side (including instantiating the datamodel in XML). IE is not an appropriate platform for building fat clients (read slow, memory inefficient, and hard to test.)
Using persuasive language without a qualification comes accross as marketing FUD. Please qualify "best" for us..NET is a suite of tools, some old, some new. Each has a set of strength and/or weakness depending on your point of view. For example, C# and its ability to sidestep strong typing and security server/client side, VBA client side and its ability to drive a lot of client side integration (Office Automation), complicated by the fact most enterprise make this almost impossible with default desktop security, Studio with a serious bent on good integration with anything Microsoft but not so good with anything else... coupled with documentation that is completely outdated on MSDN (OLE Object Stream initialization for embedded controls). There are some serious architectual flaws in the whole attempt to integrate OLE/OCX with web pages and services (including support of archaec pre-web stuff.) Extended clip board support... Complexity injected via SOAP/XSL...
So please qualify "best". Because its not reduced complexity, increased quality, best reliablity, best scalability, best security, shortest delivery time, easy integration, or fastest performance...
This might have been so... ten years ago. The amount of Apple branding in media is way down. And I know the exactly the opposite in our local market. Most of our publishers/printers run Windows. You'd be hard pressed to find any Macs in the graphics and animation shops here. 3D modelling? PC. Staging, animation and simulation? PC. Video production/enhancement? PC. Render farms, photo editing, you name it - even Adobe Photoshop now claims the best performance on the Wintel platform. Apple lost all its vertical niches in the late 90s because of the death of RISC/CISC, Copeland, OpenDoc, and price point.
I don't want to get into a religious debate; just point out that Apple isn't a contender in any vertical anymore. Even Steve said "milk it for all its worth" while he turns it into a consumer appliance.
My office was like this... 1991 - 5 macs 1994 - 4 macs, 2 PCs 1998 - 4 PCs, 2 macs (1 PC running linux) 2001 - 5 PCs, 1 mac running OS X 2006 - 6 PCs (the OS X mac isn't even on anymore, and I don't think anyone's tried to figure out why)
Yep yep, the latter footnote claims they tried to serve him several times at home, and each time he claimed to be someone else (including his dead father.)
The best way to avoid being served is to have a ferocious pitbull with you at all times.
You don't need huge budgets to create quality software. Just look at what Apache, Linux and even Blender did with little or no budget. If people are willing to donate their time, then you have just taken the most expensive component of software development, and you have driven it to virtually zero.
And here is the flaw of open source software. It works great for things like Apache and Linux that have broad horizontal application. But... you take it to a vertical, whether it be a game, a simulator, or anything like that - you're pool of resources drops as does their incentive for contributing.
Here is a case; Sim42 (http://www.virtualmaterials.com/sim42/whatsopen.h tml) was an open source chemical process simulator. OSS solution to replace a big, expensive piece of software used by anyone that does chemical engineering. With the huge price tag of commercial versions, that made it difficult for developing world or small engineering companies, to afford such software, you'd think that they'd have people who can program beating down the door, right? Wrong. Virtually no participation (pun). People who found it useful did not contribute. In fact, some companies used it to bolster/improve commercial applications (blant violation of license!) Not even from education! So why didn't the project get enough participation to stay alive?
Because the consumers of technology are not always producers of technology. I guy who uses linux or apache to build something might in turn help build linux or apache. Those two are not the end consumable. The incentive is that by helping build that software, you are in turn helping yourself by building your own stuff on top of it.
VM thought the same applied to simulation. But it didn't. The simulator was a final stop. A canned application (even though arguably it could be embedded in something.) The people using it probably were not capable of contributing to its programming.
So, its a question of reusability, and incentive. Unless the game engine is revolutionary and can get reused in a different context, does a marginal fan base have the ability to move the software forward? Hell no. Its a dead end vertical.
Note, Bungie opened up Marathon and Myth after moving to Microsoft. This somewhat worked because they already had a big fan base, of which there were programmers. You can't do the same thing for a product that hasn't been released yet.
The attempt to hit OSS is really a recognition that the game needs a LOT of work in a short period of time, more than anyone is likely to put into it ($).
The market is pretty much saturated with EverQuest and WoW. There is huge money and tons of time behind polishing these apps. Even lesser crud like GuildWars.
You can't do A1 titles on a shoestring budget, and if you build it they don't always come because you need to support it. (So capital and operating costs...) So they're looking for a buyer; and one buyer is suggesting an OSS because its sisyphysian in nature.
The story of some of them is the same; source company can't keep the burner going without income so does whatever it can to keep the dream alive.
Software development is almost pure labor. Labor is the most expensive part of any endeavor. You can't take from the huge pot of $ without an equal amount of $ comming in. And there is a boatload of competition.
If you think about the number of symbols being tracked from the key exchanges, we have over 250,000. A publish an subscribe system usually bottoms out at 20,000 topics. (In the old days, SmartSockets had trouble with 2,000.)
The number of events/updates comming through, at least 7 years ago, was about 800 every second. That's a lot of information.
So, what can we do with that much information that is updated so frequently?
Well, implementing time and sales for just transactions takes lots of disk space. Gig for a day. Now, try and keep yearly data. Now you have huge, absolutely freaking huge, data storage issues. And search... wow. Neural doesn't seem appropriate.
So where do we actually implement automated trading? Look for a few commodity stocks, high volume, no dividend. These will follow certain daily trends. Apply some fuzzy logic - threshold and objective functions. In the morning, we are high. We drop until mid day, and then we go up a bit. Drop again in the after noon, and we're usually high or low at end of day more along our daily trend.
And then there is NASDAQ-OTC, or any pink sheeted company. Here we take advantage of stupid people and penny stocks. If the stock is worthless, there is a large float, and there is news, and suddenly there are a bunch of transactions, we can start our automated shorting. News flows a lot less frequently. And you know a dump is comming after a reverse split. This is highly automatable.
Any fund managers want to give me money to write it for them? It has been done before...
I didn't say l2 was not delayed. l2 gives you depth and bredth of bid/ask. If you track time and sales in addition to bid/ask and size - you can get a better idea of up or down trend for the next short time window. And the delay I'm talking about is execution, not real time quote.
People who say its too volatile and not logical are wrong...
If you have level 2 access, you can pretty accurately predict where a stock is going. Sure, you don't know from day to day, but there are reasons for market introduced delays and market makers.
Its all about managing risk anyway. The risk about doing something positive about nothing is far less than the risk about doing nothing about something.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually not true. There is an admin DNS sploit recently patched - one that was known about in other Unix-likes for years. Its only a matter of time before more show up.
Well hell, it's back. Eight years ago they killed it complete for ADC, now it seems back for premier and with restriction for select membership. But I guess $500 membership and a year wait is worth the 10-20% (what's that, $200 tops)? Yeah - sarcasm.
The mindset is fundamentally the same; FTA, one 'advantage' being pushed is the security... A variety of reputable sources have already pointed out that this is illusory. Windows flaws are exposed because tens-of-thousands of hackers are pounding on it. MacOS X has two orders of magnitude less hackers; but as it gains in popularity, so do people with malicious intent. MacOS X might have been based on Mach Unix, but MacOS security is NOT Unix. Just google MacOS X Security Flaws.
And don't forget, NeXT (I had one) wasn't totally secure. There were all sorts of sploits in DisplayPostscript, and sure it was dropped for OS X, it too never had the hoarde beating on it.
And the real benefit of the x86 architecture is now all those x86 hackers can move their expertise from Windows to MacOS.
For more detail, http://apple.computerhistory.org/discuss/msgReader $72?mode=topic
The machine you mention is being pushed near cost under the "nice dock for your iPod." Apple got out of discounting volume ten years ago. From a source, still at Apple, when I asked about this was... "We can't afford to give stuff away."
Apple also got out of discounting hardware to developers... but that's another story.
Apple has never got it. Ever. It means Corporate or Enterprise IT. If you look at their history in dealing with Big companies, you see recurring mistakes over the past 15 years. Some examples... In the early '90s, Apple was IN BASF. One of the things BASF liked was Apple seemed to be actively supporting the platform. They chose to over look the lack of engineering tools for the great support Apple was giving them. Then Apple Europe restructed and all the close working relationship was dropped. By '95, Apple was pretty much out of every european production/manufacturing company.
I was working as an Apple developer for 10 years in engineering. Every WWDC I would argue (with the sci-eng evangelist; a position they found hard to staff) that incentives to VARs would not break into corporate IT. Productivity alone doesn't cut it. The world needs Apps, and Apple needed to bend over backward to support developers brave enough to try for that 1%. Suffices to say... the strategy has not changed. Incentives to VARs and pushing the illusory ease and security envelope.
My column is called "Personal Technology." I don't cover, or care
about, corporate IT and its needs.
Walt
On Jan 4 2007, at 1:36 PM, Bernie wrote:
Not just power users will resist 2007. I'd say most corporate IT
will be very slow in adopting it because of the new interface. Front-
line desktop support cannot afford a radical shift in training either
themselves or the hoardes of almost tech illiterate they in turn
support.
Another big whack (not including performance and evil XML) is Office
Automation. This too has changed; to the point that any enterprise
that integrates internal IS applications with Office will be facing
significant cost of re-write.
And if I remember what I read, the plug in architecture is
different. Which will annoy anyone who uses offices applications as
a platform to build applications. I used to write XLLs/XLAs; that I
pretty much stopped on the last plug in change.
Bernie
I was an Apple developer for 10 years. I lived through the 68k to PPC601 transition. Apple pushed the throughput of RISK vs CISC; but it really wasn't about throughput. Apple had a deal with Motorola, and it was getting expensive to push the envelope on 68k. Intel on the other hand continued to push the envelope on x86; so much so that the real architectural difference wrt pipelining and such became irrelevant. Every RISC pushing the envelope performance test from 93 to 96 was a lie. Intel hit the market with x86 chips that were outperforming the latest (non production) PPC line. Doesn't matter that the architecture was counter intuitive. And if you ever looked at the 604 and later architectures; they were HARDLY RISC. So I say again, by 96, the RISC/CISC argument was dead.
... crap I forget that model ... but Apple killed that too by not publishing the specifications and crippling CFM. Course this fun stuff was tied to specific Quadra models.
As a developer, I found one of the most irritating things about RISC chips (PPC or Sparc) to be the binaries that were 3x the sizes... and for what? With Apple specifically, producing a FAT binary was a total PITA. The Code Fragment Manager was a total mess; but a nice hack to attempt to support runtime architecture switching. Now.... did you know that originally there was the option of running both 68k and PPC in upgrade machines like the 630 that had 68k running at the same time PPC was going on the expansion card? There was also the possibility of running code the DSP
Anyway I digress; one point I forgot to make was the huge performance hit when trying to determine what architecture to run on in the attempt to support multiple architectures (via brk!)
People are missing the point of a US manned moon station. Public opinion. People don't care about robots. They don't care about L5 stations. They DO care about manned missions. Note that a few years back, public opinion was in the camp of Robots are cheaper... and with NASA failed Mars missions, this was pervasive. But things change. When China announced manned moon and Mars missions; NASA (Bush) policy did a 180. The Chinese CANNOT be the first to have a permanent colony anywhere because that would mean Communist China > Democratic America. So the space race is on again. In my opinion, the right thing for the wrong reason...
Right on - just don't forget the primary motivation is to get there before the Chinese (that announced a 2015 plan.)
Your numbers are wrong. There are 30 million people in Canada - total. There are likely 50,000 Inuit people total. That said; they're already complaining about longer summers - or shorter winters - and more specifically about lack of goods being transported in the summer because its actually easier to transport accross snow then it is the big bog...
Any old Apple salt knows that Apple used to be VERY KEEN on personal publishing; and letting the world know what was going on through their Advanced Technology Group. One of the ultra cool things about ATG for years was seeing the cool stuff at WWDC...
... Microsoft. There was an uncanny parallel between what was shown by the ATG at WWDC and Microsoft marketting press releases in the subsequent weeks. Microsoft won a lot of mindshare based on skunkworks stuff not developed there! And Apple management realized it.
And here is where Apple got burned.
Showing the cool stuff often meant exposing research and development to
Now before I get flagged as a troll and Apple fanboy; I'm not. I can site many examples of this from 90 to 95 - before ATG stopped presenting and was for the most part disolved. I got totally burned by OpenDoc and the phoenix of Steve.
As a side note, Microsoft still actively supports its think tank (though you rarely see anything commercial come of it), and Google lets you work on your own skunkworks 20% of your time (and get paid for it, but it belongs to Google.)
I agree; I didn't say VS was crap. Its a great tool; and they have some good brains behind it now (Blake Stone). But its not the best, and Microsoft isn't on the verge of solving some of these complex problems. Rich apps are often multi-tech solutions. Besides what is divided to client and server; implementation on both. For example, I've written apps that use vbs and js client side, coupled with activex controls, just to try bend around implementing a fat client. I've also maintained rich apps that try and do everything client side (including instantiating the datamodel in XML). IE is not an appropriate platform for building fat clients (read slow, memory inefficient, and hard to test.)
Can I use PowerBuilder? Access? Seriously...
Click once and an annoying animation comes up asking you what you really wanted to do.
[Microsoft has the best virtual machine and IDE.]
.NET is a suite of tools, some old, some new. Each has a set of strength and/or weakness depending on your point of view. For example, C# and its ability to sidestep strong typing and security server/client side, VBA client side and its ability to drive a lot of client side integration (Office Automation), complicated by the fact most enterprise make this almost impossible with default desktop security, Studio with a serious bent on good integration with anything Microsoft but not so good with anything else... coupled with documentation that is completely outdated on MSDN (OLE Object Stream initialization for embedded controls). There are some serious architectual flaws in the whole attempt to integrate OLE/OCX with web pages and services (including support of archaec pre-web stuff.) Extended clip board support... Complexity injected via SOAP/XSL...
Using persuasive language without a qualification comes accross as marketing FUD. Please qualify "best" for us.
So please qualify "best". Because its not reduced complexity, increased quality, best reliablity, best scalability, best security, shortest delivery time, easy integration, or fastest performance...
This might have been so... ten years ago. The amount of Apple branding in media is way down. And I know the exactly the opposite in our local market. Most of our publishers/printers run Windows. You'd be hard pressed to find any Macs in the graphics and animation shops here. 3D modelling? PC. Staging, animation and simulation? PC. Video production/enhancement? PC. Render farms, photo editing, you name it - even Adobe Photoshop now claims the best performance on the Wintel platform. Apple lost all its vertical niches in the late 90s because of the death of RISC/CISC, Copeland, OpenDoc, and price point.
I don't want to get into a religious debate; just point out that Apple isn't a contender in any vertical anymore. Even Steve said "milk it for all its worth" while he turns it into a consumer appliance.
My office was like this...
1991 - 5 macs
1994 - 4 macs, 2 PCs
1998 - 4 PCs, 2 macs (1 PC running linux)
2001 - 5 PCs, 1 mac running OS X
2006 - 6 PCs (the OS X mac isn't even on anymore, and I don't think anyone's tried to figure out why)
Yep yep, the latter footnote claims they tried to serve him several times at home, and each time he claimed to be someone else (including his dead father.)
The best way to avoid being served is to have a ferocious pitbull with you at all times.
You don't need huge budgets to create quality software. Just look at what Apache, Linux and even Blender did with little or no budget. If people are willing to donate their time, then you have just taken the most expensive component of software development, and you have driven it to virtually zero.
h tml) was an open source chemical process simulator. OSS solution to replace a big, expensive piece of software used by anyone that does chemical engineering. With the huge price tag of commercial versions, that made it difficult for developing world or small engineering companies, to afford such software, you'd think that they'd have people who can program beating down the door, right? Wrong. Virtually no participation (pun). People who found it useful did not contribute. In fact, some companies used it to bolster/improve commercial applications (blant violation of license!) Not even from education! So why didn't the project get enough participation to stay alive?
And here is the flaw of open source software. It works great for things like Apache and Linux that have broad horizontal application. But... you take it to a vertical, whether it be a game, a simulator, or anything like that - you're pool of resources drops as does their incentive for contributing.
Here is a case; Sim42 (http://www.virtualmaterials.com/sim42/whatsopen.
Because the consumers of technology are not always producers of technology. I guy who uses linux or apache to build something might in turn help build linux or apache. Those two are not the end consumable. The incentive is that by helping build that software, you are in turn helping yourself by building your own stuff on top of it.
VM thought the same applied to simulation. But it didn't. The simulator was a final stop. A canned application (even though arguably it could be embedded in something.) The people using it probably were not capable of contributing to its programming.
So, its a question of reusability, and incentive. Unless the game engine is revolutionary and can get reused in a different context, does a marginal fan base have the ability to move the software forward? Hell no. Its a dead end vertical.
Note, Bungie opened up Marathon and Myth after moving to Microsoft. This somewhat worked because they already had a big fan base, of which there were programmers. You can't do the same thing for a product that hasn't been released yet.
The attempt to hit OSS is really a recognition that the game needs a LOT of work in a short period of time, more than anyone is likely to put into it ($).
g ames
The market is pretty much saturated with EverQuest and WoW. There is huge money and tons of time behind polishing these apps. Even lesser crud like GuildWars.
You can't do A1 titles on a shoestring budget, and if you build it they don't always come because you need to support it. (So capital and operating costs...) So they're looking for a buyer; and one buyer is suggesting an OSS because its sisyphysian in nature.
There are other open alternatives around. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_
The story of some of them is the same; source company can't keep the burner going without income so does whatever it can to keep the dream alive.
Software development is almost pure labor. Labor is the most expensive part of any endeavor. You can't take from the huge pot of $ without an equal amount of $ comming in. And there is a boatload of competition.
If you think about the number of symbols being tracked from the key exchanges, we have over 250,000. A publish an subscribe system usually bottoms out at 20,000 topics. (In the old days, SmartSockets had trouble with 2,000.)
The number of events/updates comming through, at least 7 years ago, was about 800 every second. That's a lot of information.
So, what can we do with that much information that is updated so frequently?
Well, implementing time and sales for just transactions takes lots of disk space. Gig for a day. Now, try and keep yearly data. Now you have huge, absolutely freaking huge, data storage issues. And search... wow. Neural doesn't seem appropriate.
So where do we actually implement automated trading?
Look for a few commodity stocks, high volume, no dividend. These will follow certain daily trends. Apply some fuzzy logic - threshold and objective functions. In the morning, we are high. We drop until mid day, and then we go up a bit. Drop again in the after noon, and we're usually high or low at end of day more along our daily trend.
And then there is NASDAQ-OTC, or any pink sheeted company. Here we take advantage of stupid people and penny stocks. If the stock is worthless, there is a large float, and there is news, and suddenly there are a bunch of transactions, we can start our automated shorting. News flows a lot less frequently. And you know a dump is comming after a reverse split. This is highly automatable.
Any fund managers want to give me money to write it for them? It has been done before...
I didn't say l2 was not delayed. l2 gives you depth and bredth of bid/ask. If you track time and sales in addition to bid/ask and size - you can get a better idea of up or down trend for the next short time window. And the delay I'm talking about is execution, not real time quote.
People who say its too volatile and not logical are wrong...
If you have level 2 access, you can pretty accurately predict where a stock is going. Sure, you don't know from day to day, but there are reasons for market introduced delays and market makers.
Aside from your brilliant use of language... more often than not applied waterfall models DO iterate. The ideal scenario is that it is linear.
http://www.waterfall2006.com/
Sign up now, you need help.
Its all about managing risk anyway. The risk about doing something positive about nothing is far less than the risk about doing nothing about something.