One difference still is the price point. Even though the major vendors continue to flirt with "oh, they'll still buy it at this price" type of thinking (and suffer the consequences), they are still a ways off from what a solid PC gaming system costs.
Sorry, but that's a gross simplification comparing those on the same field. Like I said, you've already made up your mind, that is in turn your proof that Jesus never existed. I've got nothing else to say if you can't see that.
But you just exposed your bias in this, which has nothing to do with historical record. Any amount of evidence wouldn't sway you, because you've already made your mind up. You should look up the dynamics of how historians differentiate history and myth on this subject.
I would encourage you to do a little research on this subject - this has been looked at quite extensively, where the details of this claim is broken down and presuppositions and double-standards of historicity are examined.
Using this same historical burden of proof, you must also say that most other historical figures have no evidence of existence either. Otherwise you're trying to have it both ways.
The HFTs are paying the stock exchanges a fee to have access to faster trades. The service HFT provides is market making. When you offer to buy shares at a certain price, there may not be any sellers at any given time. HFT ensures that there is always a seller as long as your buy price is high enough and that there is always a buyer as long as the sell price is low enough.
They essentially provide a similar service as banks. Banks borrow money at a lower rate and and lend money at a higher rate creating profit with each transaction. This was seen as immoral at various times in history, but now we know this serves to create liquidity. There is always someone willing to lend you money and always someone willing to borrow it from you as long as you are ok with market interest rates.
If you don't like the non-level playing field of the NYSE, then you can simply abstain from participating in it. This stock exchange is not a public service, it is a private enterprise. It is not supposed to be fair. It is supposed to make profit for it's owners by attracting customers (traders), and one thing it has decided to do (along with many other exchanges) is give preferential treatment to customers who are willing to pay for a higher level of service.
You would get the same liquidity without HFT as it has been done in prior years without the listed drawbacks that HTF introduces. To your second point, yes, it is a private institution, but it's also subject to SEC regulation unlike other industries because of the unique considerations of public trading, so restricting things like HFT would not be unprecedented, and much of the SEC rules is to provide a level playing field.
"They amass billions by siphoning it away from the majority of people in the market, and in return give us nothing of social value."
How are they "siphoning" anything away from a majority of people?
How are they giving nothing in social value? The money these people make they spend on other business ventures, familial needs, education, healthcare, charity, do you have any evidence at all that this money is going into a black hole of sorts?
I thought not.
So would the guys a few milliseconds behind - that isn't a relevant point. And that's not even what the parent was referring to about "social value". They mean about giving a sense of "worth" to publicly traded companies, which compels them to make sound business decisions. And the "siphoning" refers to a lack of a "level playing field", which is the reason we have laws against monopolies, price-fixing, etc...
Wrong. There is still the same work that needs to be done, and companies will still have it done whether it's done with free or cheap(er) labor. And if there are ones eliminated, those are probably the ones who are just getting coffee and other menial, non-educational tasks - the ones that should be eliminated anyway.
MS will still have its big niche in the corporate world, mainly because no one really touches this area yet. The thing is that before smartphones and tablets, this niche was the only game in town for all computing needs. Remember Apple before OSX? Now if Apple decided to try its hand with cost-effective, enterprise-wide software,...hmmmm....
I could easily imagine a potential employer reasoning that you can't have a better test than try you out with the real deal. Hard to fault that logic. And just interview people as an ongoing, ever-changing consulting source? You know how cost-inefficient that would be compared to just hiring someone? There's a reason why job-searching sites exist and are a viable business - it costs time and money to find candidates. And finally, even if they get a freebie from you - were you planning on somehow monetizing it yourself?
Using a negative term like "killing" rather than "becoming more efficient" or a like term to describe technological progression. We don't know what the future holds for us (oh wait, we've never known that), and it seems to make the terms "bad" and "bad for me" synonymous. The fact that the notion of having to be an adaptable workforce is borderline catastrophic says to me that we've had it pretty well for quite a while.
Yeah the "herded" comment could come across as being rather conceited. I've seen this guy talk at a gathering before in person, and let's just say I think he's pretty used to preaching to the choir.
The answer was definite "no" with the Wii, but now it's much closer to a "yes" (especially if you want 2 players), and you get all the other benefits of a computer besides gaming. I personally think Nintendo misread why they did so well with the Wii - I personally don't think they'll be repeating that success.
I guess I was referring to an individual or activist group that takes the minority employee % of a company or organization, and uses that as ammunition against them in court. You're probably right though - it's probably not a law, maybe just a court ruling or precedent or something.
But this is my point: the Supreme Court could rule that indirect discrimination goes against the intent of the law (disallowing hiring based on the employer's prejudice.), and thus would not be considered discrimination anymore.
I'm interested to see what will happen if a case involving this goes to the Supreme Court. The lawyers could conceivably argue, "Our minority employment % doesn't fit the current laws. However, we nonetheless didn't actually discriminate, and WE CAN PROVE IT. Please toss the law."
Slashdot Mirror
One difference still is the price point. Even though the major vendors continue to flirt with "oh, they'll still buy it at this price" type of thinking (and suffer the consequences), they are still a ways off from what a solid PC gaming system costs.
Plenty of stuff out there on those sorts of arguments of other religions. Not too hard to find.
Point being, you have a naturalistic worldview - something that has nothing to do with history scholarship nor does science have any bearing on.
Sorry, but that's a gross simplification comparing those on the same field. Like I said, you've already made up your mind, that is in turn your proof that Jesus never existed. I've got nothing else to say if you can't see that.
I believe it says "this generation" - he wasn't referring to the next one.
But you just exposed your bias in this, which has nothing to do with historical record. Any amount of evidence wouldn't sway you, because you've already made your mind up. You should look up the dynamics of how historians differentiate history and myth on this subject.
This is heading into a very long historical debate. Just a cursory glance at wikipedia would have a good starting point for information.
I would encourage you to do a little research on this subject - this has been looked at quite extensively, where the details of this claim is broken down and presuppositions and double-standards of historicity are examined.
There is no evidence that Jesus even existed.
Using this same historical burden of proof, you must also say that most other historical figures have no evidence of existence either. Otherwise you're trying to have it both ways.
The amendment vote was 205-217. That's not losing by too much.
MSVS needs to get refactoring. This is huge for maintaining large software projects.
The HFTs are paying the stock exchanges a fee to have access to faster trades. The service HFT provides is market making. When you offer to buy shares at a certain price, there may not be any sellers at any given time. HFT ensures that there is always a seller as long as your buy price is high enough and that there is always a buyer as long as the sell price is low enough.
They essentially provide a similar service as banks. Banks borrow money at a lower rate and and lend money at a higher rate creating profit with each transaction. This was seen as immoral at various times in history, but now we know this serves to create liquidity. There is always someone willing to lend you money and always someone willing to borrow it from you as long as you are ok with market interest rates.
If you don't like the non-level playing field of the NYSE, then you can simply abstain from participating in it. This stock exchange is not a public service, it is a private enterprise. It is not supposed to be fair. It is supposed to make profit for it's owners by attracting customers (traders), and one thing it has decided to do (along with many other exchanges) is give preferential treatment to customers who are willing to pay for a higher level of service.
You would get the same liquidity without HFT as it has been done in prior years without the listed drawbacks that HTF introduces. To your second point, yes, it is a private institution, but it's also subject to SEC regulation unlike other industries because of the unique considerations of public trading, so restricting things like HFT would not be unprecedented, and much of the SEC rules is to provide a level playing field.
"They amass billions by siphoning it away from the majority of people in the market, and in return give us nothing of social value."
How are they "siphoning" anything away from a majority of people?
How are they giving nothing in social value? The money these people make they spend on other business ventures, familial needs, education, healthcare, charity, do you have any evidence at all that this money is going into a black hole of sorts?
I thought not.
So would the guys a few milliseconds behind - that isn't a relevant point. And that's not even what the parent was referring to about "social value". They mean about giving a sense of "worth" to publicly traded companies, which compels them to make sound business decisions. And the "siphoning" refers to a lack of a "level playing field", which is the reason we have laws against monopolies, price-fixing, etc...
Wrong. There is still the same work that needs to be done, and companies will still have it done whether it's done with free or cheap(er) labor. And if there are ones eliminated, those are probably the ones who are just getting coffee and other menial, non-educational tasks - the ones that should be eliminated anyway.
MS will still have its big niche in the corporate world, mainly because no one really touches this area yet. The thing is that before smartphones and tablets, this niche was the only game in town for all computing needs. Remember Apple before OSX? Now if Apple decided to try its hand with cost-effective, enterprise-wide software, ...hmmmm....
...would you like fries with that? ;p
...woah.....
I could easily imagine a potential employer reasoning that you can't have a better test than try you out with the real deal. Hard to fault that logic. And just interview people as an ongoing, ever-changing consulting source? You know how cost-inefficient that would be compared to just hiring someone? There's a reason why job-searching sites exist and are a viable business - it costs time and money to find candidates. And finally, even if they get a freebie from you - were you planning on somehow monetizing it yourself?
Using a negative term like "killing" rather than "becoming more efficient" or a like term to describe technological progression. We don't know what the future holds for us (oh wait, we've never known that), and it seems to make the terms "bad" and "bad for me" synonymous. The fact that the notion of having to be an adaptable workforce is borderline catastrophic says to me that we've had it pretty well for quite a while.
Ph.D's don't pull these shenanigans
Well I have my Ph.D, and I work with a lot of Ph.Ds. The fact that this goes on a lot is hardly any secret. Where are you getting this notion from?
Yeah the "herded" comment could come across as being rather conceited. I've seen this guy talk at a gathering before in person, and let's just say I think he's pretty used to preaching to the choir.
The answer was definite "no" with the Wii, but now it's much closer to a "yes" (especially if you want 2 players), and you get all the other benefits of a computer besides gaming. I personally think Nintendo misread why they did so well with the Wii - I personally don't think they'll be repeating that success.
I guess I was referring to an individual or activist group that takes the minority employee % of a company or organization, and uses that as ammunition against them in court. You're probably right though - it's probably not a law, maybe just a court ruling or precedent or something.
But this is my point: the Supreme Court could rule that indirect discrimination goes against the intent of the law (disallowing hiring based on the employer's prejudice.), and thus would not be considered discrimination anymore.
I'm interested to see what will happen if a case involving this goes to the Supreme Court. The lawyers could conceivably argue, "Our minority employment % doesn't fit the current laws. However, we nonetheless didn't actually discriminate, and WE CAN PROVE IT. Please toss the law."