I like how you chose to quote one part of the text, going from "tens if not hundreds" to "OMG he said hundreds!" and folks who can't read more then one liners chime in en masse.
Reason is time. Christianity started violent purges first when it took over Roman Empire. It then proceeded into violent conquest of the Europe over next millenium or so. At the same time we had violent raids known as crusades, dark ages and its religious purges such as spanish inquisition and witchhunts, struggle for feudal control often motivated by religious interests. It kicked gear up with prostestant-catholic split and massive amounts of both civil and military strife it caused. Outside Europe there was the colonial angle with brutal conquest and enslavement that came with it, driven by duet of religious and economic reasons (educate the heathens to teachings of Christ and get resources and labour cheap). We still have brutal christianity vs different kind of christianity and islam vs christianity and local beliefs vs both of above as one of the main sources of strife, poverty and war around Africa as a relic of colonial age.
On home front in the West religion has been slowly ousted from power, however many leaders in the West still quote divine powers as source of their military inspiration.
In general, the argument is that while early purges were fairly inefficient due to small population and numbers, fact that these went on for almost two millenia now means that numbers simply cannot be any lower then ones mentioned above. This is why islam's demonization typically focuses on recent history only. Christianity still holds the podium of the most violent and bloody religion and will do so for a while unless some sort of large scale religious war occurs that will cause WW2-levels of losses in short period of time. Which isn't impossible per se due to exploded population numbers and weapon efficiency but extremely unlikely.
You forget that most judaism-sourced religions have conversion as a core belief. Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
Big religions are a tool for control of the masses. So is conquest. Is it really so surprising that they go hand in hand even today?
I agree on slowness, it's a bit laggy on my cheap personal laptop as I use it with a lot of tabs open. But it's a small price to pay to not have to suffer from chrome's interface with all its usability-butchering small screen optimizations on my dual 24" monitor setup as well as never having to worry about key add-ons, such as mission critical (for me) finnish spellchecking break on update with no recourse but rollback.
Essentially, unless someone mods entire 3.6 UI back, including a functional status bar and buttons, about the only upgrade I can see myself making is to another browser with same add-ons and interface that isn't optimized for small screens. And seeing how I'm add-on locked into firefox for foreseeable future, that's not likely either. Sandboxie really isn't all that terrible if you have a fast enough machine, and my desktop is a two year old gaming PC. It could probably run hundreds of tabs before it would start to slow down.
In a way, modding FF UI back to 3.6 be something I should suggest to folks working on classic shell. They made IE look reasonably usable again after all, maybe they'll do the same for firefox? Wishful thinking but a man can dream.
Perhaps the biggest downfall of trying to popularise OSS is in the egos of developers and "you must open source everything" evangelism. "It's my way or the highway"-attitude is understandable in hobbyist circles, but unacceptable in professional ones. The code was likely written to be used to improve drivers. This insistence will ensure that drivers will not get improved and user base of linux will suffer for it. Code writers suffer because they spent effort to write pieces of driver implementation that is useless if not included in drivers. Nvidia will suffer too, but this is like having a doctor suffer watching a patient flagellating himself.
Nvidia is in the business of making a profit in a very competitive market. They have pretty strong competitive reasons to not open source their driver implementations considering just how important various driver optimizations are from performance point of view. As a result, these "pushes to open source drivers" simply look like unprofessional tantrums in the eyes of companies like nvidia.
And sadly, linux is the one in desperate need of better drivers, and its the users of linux that suffer due to lack of these.
No offence, but you're trying really hard to ram a square peg into a round hole here. You're either very ignorant on modern fly-by-wire mechanics as the tool for control of aerodynamically unstable aircraft and modern stock exchange operations and macro economics, or you have a vested interest in the issue.
Either way, the argument isn't going to go anywhere. You will persist on insisting that square peg goes into round hole just fine using demagogy as you have done so far, which will do nothing for the argument other then leave the original topic. This topic being that completely discreet and decentralized HFTs destabilize modern financial sector severely enough to cause significant noticeable manifestations of these problems in real economy, such as "flash crashes" reducing availability of financing of industrial projects due to increase of volatility. To argue against this is akin to arguing that indeed, you could fly an inherently unstable aircraft without central computer system translating pilot command inputs into "what pilot wants to do with the plane" directives which then get translated into what each individual servo should execute, using only computer systems directly responsible for moving each individual control surface. It's either ignorance, stupidity, attempt to lie to promote a hidden agenda or a combination of all three.
You do not understand how modern exchange works. Your assumptions are based on "what should be done to make it fair".
Fairness isn't a part of vocabulary on trading floor. It's first come first serve. And with large sums involved, it's in direct interest of exchanges to enable system as unfair as possible so that HFTs are wildly successful, but just barely above what major players would consider massively disadvantaging to them and start pushing for legislation against it.
There is no malice here. It's just the best business strategy for exchanges and big players. Everyone else gets screwed.
Each trader has a system that functions on its own speed. Most aren't connected from the trading floor. Most don't have super computers. As a result, they will by definition be some fractions of seconds, in some cases seconds slower then a heavily optimized super computer sitting right below the trading floor. This is basics of IT management.
The entire point is that they do not. There is no control over the entire system. To make unstable fighter fly, you need a computer system running compex algoritms that control the ENTIRE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. If you lack this, your unstable plane will crash. Individual embedded hardware and software running each servo can't keep the entire plane afloat - it only knows the situation of its individual control surface.
There is no such system in current stock market. All we have is individual servos and there is absolutely no unified control over them. Hence, various flash crashes due to human interference being just as late as it would be in an unstable aircraft.
This is correct. Jet wash is basically the vortex effect in the air after the plane passes that is caused by drag. It causes extreme turbulence and is dangerous enough for large aircraft to have mandated spacing on take off or land from the same runway. For example, one of the issues with A380 has been that it's so big, that they had to increase the biggest "slot" allocated for take off and landing due to jet wash caused by it.
If you want to spend significant effort owning my browser, go ahead. I dump contents of sandbox it sits in on a regular basis.
Not to mention I have sane banking and billing. Even if you get me keylogged, you're not getting into my account. Nevermind that I haven't had a security breach ever since I got form.A virus back in floppy days. Security is not only about holes, but about safe practices as well. And I play things like WoW and GW2, where people with all those nice shiny browsers get "hacked" left and right. And yet, me and my old "vulnerable" 3.6 just keep on truckin'.
You seem to suggest that US didn't copy cities during its own build up. It did. Not to extent of chinese today due to lack of imaging technology back then, but it certainly copied architecture a lot.
Innovating and inventing is harder then copying. It's the same as what happened with US in the early industrial revolution. They copied Old World until there was little to copy, then they found themselves with solid manufacturing base and engineering expertise to move to much harder inventing and innovating.
Looking at the history, they will innovate and invent in countries not constrained by these rules. It's going to be rise of the New World yet again, only this time in the East instead of West.
This is where the extremely low latency comes in. They have a computer that has a few seconds at best to find a seller, a buyer, test seller for minimum he will sell for, test buyer for maximum he will buy and then get in between and trade.
This is why supercomputers with extremely low internal latency on extremely fast local connections to the trading floor are the vogue in the HFT market. In there, every fraction of millisecond counts. And that's why renting rack space under the trading floor costs astronomic sums.
It sounds ridiculous to a person not intimately familiar with the system because of how incredibly unfair and broken towards actual traders this is. But you won't find any major exchanges that wouldn't monetize HFT potential by things like leasing rack space and connections for astronomic sums of money. It's THEIR business after all. As with most things in life, following the money usually leads to the source.
"Economic stimulus" suggests money. In current economy, money supply for such migration projects would be extremely hard to secure. You'd be likely looking at a need with no way to finance it for many.
We're already seeing this in many elements of basic infrastructure building and support. There are things that are badly, BADLY needed and yet aren't done because of financing not being available at acceptable margins.
So in reality we'd likely get a whole bunch of small companies consisting of former MS employees offering sporadic pay-to-get patches for various MS software.
Essentially it's a problem if breaking the market. It simply won't be allowed by extremely powerful incumbents in a regulated money business. It's a bit like asking "why won't there be a bank that has transparent and fair loaning and investment policies". There are many small local banks who do that. But they're not allowed in the big leagues because the few incumbents will never allow them to get there. There's simply too much money for them at stake.
And of course, fair and transparent policies are simply outcompeted on profitability by the current corrupt ones. They're simply more profitable.
Because they need to produce profits. It's the only purpose most large players get money from their customers, like big pension funds getting money for trading.
At the same time they do not trade enough to really get hit hard enough to start piling enough pressure on politicians to counteract those who make money on HFT. They do get hit, but most who are hit are medium and small inverstors.
As far I know in most cases they cannot cancel fast enough, so one of the key areas of research in HFT algorithms is how to determine the lowest sell/highest buy rate of the "genuine traders" in the shortest time frame with lowest possible buys at too high rates. So you get "buy a small amount of stock at price x, buy at slightly less then x, even lesser then that" until you hit the "no sale" at which point you buy everything at lowest price all while doing the same for the buyer in the opposite direction.
That is why speed matters. This needs to be done before GT1 and GT2 find each other and execute the trade as it would have happened without HFT. Even fractions of milliseconds matter. And that is why HFT adds zero liquidity to the market - HFT algorithms will not make trades that don't have a profitable buyer and a seller found. They make trades before buyer and seller find each other.
Nope. Or more specifically, HFT guys get a big discount. That's why you get so much screaming and kicking over "transaction tax" proposed in EU right now. It wouldn't do anything meaningful to actual investors, but it would kill HFT because its profits are based on huge volume of trades executed with razor thin margins as they are skimming the top of the market. And with it, the profits of major players who run their own HFTs as well as profits of stock markets would go down, while reliability of market would go back to the levels 1990s when most diversified portfolios didn't really fluctuate much on daily basis as they do now.
Until major financial players are banned from lobbying politicians as effectively as they can do today and stock market rules stay lax, HFT will continue to destabilize the stock market. That is the reality of today.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how you chose to quote one part of the text, going from "tens if not hundreds" to "OMG he said hundreds!" and folks who can't read more then one liners chime in en masse.
Reason is time. Christianity started violent purges first when it took over Roman Empire. It then proceeded into violent conquest of the Europe over next millenium or so. At the same time we had violent raids known as crusades, dark ages and its religious purges such as spanish inquisition and witchhunts, struggle for feudal control often motivated by religious interests. It kicked gear up with prostestant-catholic split and massive amounts of both civil and military strife it caused.
Outside Europe there was the colonial angle with brutal conquest and enslavement that came with it, driven by duet of religious and economic reasons (educate the heathens to teachings of Christ and get resources and labour cheap). We still have brutal christianity vs different kind of christianity and islam vs christianity and local beliefs vs both of above as one of the main sources of strife, poverty and war around Africa as a relic of colonial age.
On home front in the West religion has been slowly ousted from power, however many leaders in the West still quote divine powers as source of their military inspiration.
In general, the argument is that while early purges were fairly inefficient due to small population and numbers, fact that these went on for almost two millenia now means that numbers simply cannot be any lower then ones mentioned above. This is why islam's demonization typically focuses on recent history only. Christianity still holds the podium of the most violent and bloody religion and will do so for a while unless some sort of large scale religious war occurs that will cause WW2-levels of losses in short period of time. Which isn't impossible per se due to exploded population numbers and weapon efficiency but extremely unlikely.
You forget that most judaism-sourced religions have conversion as a core belief. Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
Big religions are a tool for control of the masses. So is conquest. Is it really so surprising that they go hand in hand even today?
I agree on slowness, it's a bit laggy on my cheap personal laptop as I use it with a lot of tabs open. But it's a small price to pay to not have to suffer from chrome's interface with all its usability-butchering small screen optimizations on my dual 24" monitor setup as well as never having to worry about key add-ons, such as mission critical (for me) finnish spellchecking break on update with no recourse but rollback.
Essentially, unless someone mods entire 3.6 UI back, including a functional status bar and buttons, about the only upgrade I can see myself making is to another browser with same add-ons and interface that isn't optimized for small screens. And seeing how I'm add-on locked into firefox for foreseeable future, that's not likely either. Sandboxie really isn't all that terrible if you have a fast enough machine, and my desktop is a two year old gaming PC. It could probably run hundreds of tabs before it would start to slow down.
In a way, modding FF UI back to 3.6 be something I should suggest to folks working on classic shell. They made IE look reasonably usable again after all, maybe they'll do the same for firefox? Wishful thinking but a man can dream.
Perhaps the biggest downfall of trying to popularise OSS is in the egos of developers and "you must open source everything" evangelism. "It's my way or the highway"-attitude is understandable in hobbyist circles, but unacceptable in professional ones. The code was likely written to be used to improve drivers. This insistence will ensure that drivers will not get improved and user base of linux will suffer for it. Code writers suffer because they spent effort to write pieces of driver implementation that is useless if not included in drivers. Nvidia will suffer too, but this is like having a doctor suffer watching a patient flagellating himself.
Nvidia is in the business of making a profit in a very competitive market. They have pretty strong competitive reasons to not open source their driver implementations considering just how important various driver optimizations are from performance point of view. As a result, these "pushes to open source drivers" simply look like unprofessional tantrums in the eyes of companies like nvidia.
And sadly, linux is the one in desperate need of better drivers, and its the users of linux that suffer due to lack of these.
No offence, but you're trying really hard to ram a square peg into a round hole here. You're either very ignorant on modern fly-by-wire mechanics as the tool for control of aerodynamically unstable aircraft and modern stock exchange operations and macro economics, or you have a vested interest in the issue.
Either way, the argument isn't going to go anywhere. You will persist on insisting that square peg goes into round hole just fine using demagogy as you have done so far, which will do nothing for the argument other then leave the original topic. This topic being that completely discreet and decentralized HFTs destabilize modern financial sector severely enough to cause significant noticeable manifestations of these problems in real economy, such as "flash crashes" reducing availability of financing of industrial projects due to increase of volatility. To argue against this is akin to arguing that indeed, you could fly an inherently unstable aircraft without central computer system translating pilot command inputs into "what pilot wants to do with the plane" directives which then get translated into what each individual servo should execute, using only computer systems directly responsible for moving each individual control surface. It's either ignorance, stupidity, attempt to lie to promote a hidden agenda or a combination of all three.
You do not understand how modern exchange works. Your assumptions are based on "what should be done to make it fair".
Fairness isn't a part of vocabulary on trading floor. It's first come first serve. And with large sums involved, it's in direct interest of exchanges to enable system as unfair as possible so that HFTs are wildly successful, but just barely above what major players would consider massively disadvantaging to them and start pushing for legislation against it.
There is no malice here. It's just the best business strategy for exchanges and big players. Everyone else gets screwed.
Each trader has a system that functions on its own speed. Most aren't connected from the trading floor. Most don't have super computers. As a result, they will by definition be some fractions of seconds, in some cases seconds slower then a heavily optimized super computer sitting right below the trading floor. This is basics of IT management.
The entire point is that they do not. There is no control over the entire system. To make unstable fighter fly, you need a computer system running compex algoritms that control the ENTIRE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. If you lack this, your unstable plane will crash. Individual embedded hardware and software running each servo can't keep the entire plane afloat - it only knows the situation of its individual control surface.
There is no such system in current stock market. All we have is individual servos and there is absolutely no unified control over them. Hence, various flash crashes due to human interference being just as late as it would be in an unstable aircraft.
This is correct. Jet wash is basically the vortex effect in the air after the plane passes that is caused by drag. It causes extreme turbulence and is dangerous enough for large aircraft to have mandated spacing on take off or land from the same runway. For example, one of the issues with A380 has been that it's so big, that they had to increase the biggest "slot" allocated for take off and landing due to jet wash caused by it.
If you want to spend significant effort owning my browser, go ahead. I dump contents of sandbox it sits in on a regular basis.
Not to mention I have sane banking and billing. Even if you get me keylogged, you're not getting into my account. Nevermind that I haven't had a security breach ever since I got form.A virus back in floppy days. Security is not only about holes, but about safe practices as well. And I play things like WoW and GW2, where people with all those nice shiny browsers get "hacked" left and right. And yet, me and my old "vulnerable" 3.6 just keep on truckin'.
It of the same problems as any post-3.6 does. The only problem it removes is constant add-on compatibility headaches. The rest is still a turd.
Try flying an unstable jet without those computers. You'll end up far worse then current market does.
You seem to suggest that US didn't copy cities during its own build up. It did. Not to extent of chinese today due to lack of imaging technology back then, but it certainly copied architecture a lot.
I don't see us implementing global well designed AI to run government and finances to forcibly stabilize our "plane".
Innovating and inventing is harder then copying. It's the same as what happened with US in the early industrial revolution. They copied Old World until there was little to copy, then they found themselves with solid manufacturing base and engineering expertise to move to much harder inventing and innovating.
It's known as "the most efficient approach".
Add-on locked. I stayed on 3.6 though, chrome's interface is intolerable for me. So I just run it sandboxed now.
IS 3.6.28 bugged for you? It's the last release of the 3.6 "not chromefox" family.
Looking at the history, they will innovate and invent in countries not constrained by these rules. It's going to be rise of the New World yet again, only this time in the East instead of West.
This is where the extremely low latency comes in. They have a computer that has a few seconds at best to find a seller, a buyer, test seller for minimum he will sell for, test buyer for maximum he will buy and then get in between and trade.
This is why supercomputers with extremely low internal latency on extremely fast local connections to the trading floor are the vogue in the HFT market. In there, every fraction of millisecond counts. And that's why renting rack space under the trading floor costs astronomic sums.
It sounds ridiculous to a person not intimately familiar with the system because of how incredibly unfair and broken towards actual traders this is. But you won't find any major exchanges that wouldn't monetize HFT potential by things like leasing rack space and connections for astronomic sums of money. It's THEIR business after all. As with most things in life, following the money usually leads to the source.
"Economic stimulus" suggests money. In current economy, money supply for such migration projects would be extremely hard to secure. You'd be likely looking at a need with no way to finance it for many.
We're already seeing this in many elements of basic infrastructure building and support. There are things that are badly, BADLY needed and yet aren't done because of financing not being available at acceptable margins.
So in reality we'd likely get a whole bunch of small companies consisting of former MS employees offering sporadic pay-to-get patches for various MS software.
Essentially it's a problem if breaking the market. It simply won't be allowed by extremely powerful incumbents in a regulated money business. It's a bit like asking "why won't there be a bank that has transparent and fair loaning and investment policies". There are many small local banks who do that. But they're not allowed in the big leagues because the few incumbents will never allow them to get there. There's simply too much money for them at stake.
And of course, fair and transparent policies are simply outcompeted on profitability by the current corrupt ones. They're simply more profitable.
Because they need to produce profits. It's the only purpose most large players get money from their customers, like big pension funds getting money for trading.
At the same time they do not trade enough to really get hit hard enough to start piling enough pressure on politicians to counteract those who make money on HFT. They do get hit, but most who are hit are medium and small inverstors.
As far I know in most cases they cannot cancel fast enough, so one of the key areas of research in HFT algorithms is how to determine the lowest sell/highest buy rate of the "genuine traders" in the shortest time frame with lowest possible buys at too high rates. So you get "buy a small amount of stock at price x, buy at slightly less then x, even lesser then that" until you hit the "no sale" at which point you buy everything at lowest price all while doing the same for the buyer in the opposite direction.
That is why speed matters. This needs to be done before GT1 and GT2 find each other and execute the trade as it would have happened without HFT. Even fractions of milliseconds matter. And that is why HFT adds zero liquidity to the market - HFT algorithms will not make trades that don't have a profitable buyer and a seller found. They make trades before buyer and seller find each other.
Nope. Or more specifically, HFT guys get a big discount. That's why you get so much screaming and kicking over "transaction tax" proposed in EU right now. It wouldn't do anything meaningful to actual investors, but it would kill HFT because its profits are based on huge volume of trades executed with razor thin margins as they are skimming the top of the market. And with it, the profits of major players who run their own HFTs as well as profits of stock markets would go down, while reliability of market would go back to the levels 1990s when most diversified portfolios didn't really fluctuate much on daily basis as they do now.
Until major financial players are banned from lobbying politicians as effectively as they can do today and stock market rules stay lax, HFT will continue to destabilize the stock market. That is the reality of today.