Forwarded email breaks all these kinds of "sender authentication" systems, and that's unlikely to change in the near future. Mailing lists are one type of forwarded email, but not the only type.
We do, ultimately, want to know an email originated with a particular account, but the anti-spammers have tied origination to logic based upon the IP address of the latest server to process the message. It's not really sane, it breaks things, it's the classic anti-spammer "trick" that ends up breaking email more than spam does.
The thing I'd kinda like to know is, if this is an inside job (and things like "Mt. Gox is saying one thing but we've proven they're lying!" kinda implies that) then what was the end game?
If your business goes bankrupt, then it becomes extremely difficult to launder your supposedly stolen assets. And it's one thing to steal from your company (in some way) if you think the company is going to last decades and you can be well clear once the scam is found out, like the guys who ran Adelphia or Worldcom presumably thought. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that Mt. Gox wouldn't last very long, particularly in an unstable market, if this alleged level of fraud was going on.
Is it more likely that nothing dishonest is going on, simply bugs and other serious errors causing money to be transfered out of reach, misinterpreted as "Transaction Malleability", or were Mt. Gox's alleged scam conspirators unusually stupid?
Could you point me at anything I've said that villifies someone for nothing more than a legal, morally and ethically acceptable act and expression of his opinion?
At best, you might be able to point out somewhere where I've criticized someone their handling of how they performed a legal act (albeit not moral or ethical).
You will not find anywhere where I've criticized anyone for expressing their opinion.
The truth is I'm not saying anything you're claiming I've posted. I've explained it several times already. But even after having it spelt out, you insist on pretending otherwise, that I'm criticising someone for expressing their point of view. Even when I've explicitly told you otherwise. Even when there's nothing I've written doing so. Even when my first post in this thread explained the issue in detail, explicitly stated his views didn't matter, and gave several examples to describe the principle involved.
The truth is you don't really care do you? What you want is to find someone to attack because you heard that Eich got fired for his political views. And so you've latched on to anyone who thinks Eich shouldn't have been CEO.
Even though that person has made it clear, repeatedly, that he doesn't believe anyone should be fired for their political opinions.
But you're going to ignore this reply and instead pretend it's arguing Eich should be fired because he's anti-gay-marriage, right?
A somewhat appropriate response, given my complaint is that the GGP was responding to an argument I wasn't making, and indeed was the exact opposite of what I was saying.
I assume from your sarcasm you're in favor of that, and think it's constructive in some way.
You continue to add nothing to the discussion, appearing to continue to argue for the sake of arguing. I made a point, illustrated it with some examples, and you then proceded to attack me for THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what I was saying.
You're not "pointing (that) out", you're just trolling. You're only succeeding at the moment for two reasons.
The first is that people who criticized Mozilla for appointing Eich CEO are being misrepresented, lied about, and having their views completely distorted. When we try to speak, we're modded to the floor. People who post irrelevent, off-topic, attacks on us are modded up. You get your groupthink.
The second is that I'm doing something I haven't done in the last few "debates" on the subject. I'm fighting you fuckers. I'm responding to each comment that implies I believe Eich should be punished for his point of view, and pointing out that this is an utterly ridiculous assertion about my point of view, that it doesn't match a single thing I said.
My suggestion to you? STFU. You're not helping cast light on anything by digging in with your idiotic misrepresentations-by-implication of what's being argued. You're simply making matters worse. You're making sure that this kind of fuck-up, where someone clearly unqualified to become a CEO because of an obvious and inherent lack of judgement and respect will get into the same position, just because a handful of idiots, like you, ignore the situation instead prefering to believe the lack of qualifications has to do with being "politically incorrect".
Because people who point out bigotry and try to stop it are the true bigots even though you never said anything related to that. They're also hypocrites, albeit using a definition of the word "hypocrite" that doesn't exist outside of the imagination of 14 year olds and nutty right wingers.
(I agree with you, lest my weary sarcasm isn't obvious. Rapidly losing the will to live here.)
Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying, you do not in any way help by blindly modding down those being misrepresented. The Eich debate has been entirely one sided not because one side is right and the other wrong, but because the pro-Eich side has gotten away will willfully misrepresenting the viewpoints of those who felt Eich was not the right man for the role of Mozilla CEO.
Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?
There's no hate campaign against Eich.
...or you start a hate campaign yourself...
Address what I've actually advocated or STFU.
I'm really tired of this. I've explained the issue countless times now, and every bloody time some idiot ignores what I've posted and substitutes some strawman instead, responding to me as if I'm advocating some terrible injustice be meted out upon Eich because I don't agree with him on something.
1. People who read a comment like "I don't believe someone should be fired because of X, I do however believe that Y makes them unsuitable for the position", and they respond "YOU FASCIST!!! People shouldn't be fired because of X WHICH IS TOTALLY WHAT YOU SAID!!"
2. People who see things like "Z is an actual hate campaign, in this case positing the victims are dangers to children" and say "WELL UR A HATE CAMPAIGN TOO!! Because YOU SAID You DON'T THINK people should do that and THEY DID!!"
3. People who respond to things like "I think what I've said is so blatantly obvious it's hard to see how anyone but an idiot could think I said the exact opposite" and for someone to respond with "SO IF THEY DISAGREE with you THEY'RE IDIOTS???"
Those would be examples of idiots. You know, idiots. People who make easily avoidable errors because they're too stupid. People who have it explained to them twice they're misrepresenting someone's point of view who then, somehow, think the problem is disagreement rather than reading comprehension.
I'm sorry but it's beginning to look to me like the kneejerk "He must be saying Eich should be fired for his beliefs because, uh..." group are becoming incoherent. You've just posted... what... exactly? I mean, are you aware that your response not only continues to have no relevance to anything being said but is now completely unintelligible, and likewise SuperKendall just posted, uh, this.
Wonder how the abusive-moderators are going to act now, presumably picking mod options at random rather than mindlessly hitting "Flamebait" maybe?
OMG someone responded to something I actually said! I'm in heaven! Thank you!
I'm not reading into it what you are. Being "kicked upstairs" (or even sideways) isn't constructive dismissal and wouldn't be seen by someone as a threat to their employment.
It's not unusual to deal with issues like sexual harassment that way too. A mini-reorganization of positions occurs whereby employees having problems are no longer working under managers with "problems" who are, nonetheless, critical to the company and need to be in that position. While it's not a wonderful idea, and doesn't feel just, I'm not aware of any business actually getting into trouble for doing so, as long as the displaced, previously harassed, employees are in as-good-as or better positions.
A reasonable person could also say that Eich had a different opinion than you. THAT is what you don't get.
What exactly makes you think I don't get that? How do you end up responding to a comment making it clear that This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Eich's. Opinions and say I "don't get" that he has different opinions?
How do you get to the point that you can read an entire post that ENDS with a comment pointing out that I would be unsuitable for similar positions because of the same damned reason and think this is about Eich's opinions?
How do you get to the point that it's pointed out to you that Eich could have easily withstood the attack if he'd restated his opinion that gays shouldn't marry but disassociated himself with his donation to a campaign that said they were a danger to children and claim this is about his opinion?
How do you get to the point that it's pointed out to you that Eich could have opinions that, if not remotely similar to my own, are at least vaguely anti-rightist, and donated to a hate group (the anti-Christian group I gave as an example), in support, and not disassociated himself from it, and as a result also show himself to be disqualified for the role, and come to the opinion this is about his opinion?
I'm failing to see what about my posts drives people to respond to them as if I'm claiming Eich should be executed for having a politically incorrect opinion, particularly when I go out of my damned way to make it clear it has nothing to do with his opinion.
Oh but you're going to respond to this as if I'm saying it's about Eich disagreeing with me, right?
Honest question: I've reread the above. I cannot see a single way anyone could read it and draw the same interpretation of it as the three first responders. Or the abusive mods, FWIW.
Could someone patiently explain to me what's going on? Why is it seen as flamebait? Why do people think it's saying Eich should be punished for his private opinions when I say the exact opposite?
I'm struggling to see your point. It's bizarre, to be honest, I have three people responding to a post making it clear that Eich's respect and judgement were at issue, demonstrated by his actions concerning Prop 8 and his subsequent reaction to being found out, not his actual opinion on Prop. 8, as if I'm saying what matters were his support for Proposition 8.
Now go back and READ the comment you're responding to and show where I say anything that claims my political speech is more important than anyone else's.
And after you've done so, explain how I can point out repeatedly, explicitly, that this isn't about Eich's views or the expression of them, and even give a range of examples of situations where Eich could have handled the situation differently, and you can come away with the impression that your response is even vaguely appropriate.
We both know why you and countless others have responded to my explanations of what actually is going on with responses instead that pretend I'm an advocate of censorship or of punishing people for disagreeing with me, or whatever else: it's because you know the argument I'm making is right. You know that Eich lacked judgement and respect, and as such was completely unsuitable for a CEO role. And you know that wasn't because of his opinions, it was because he co-funded an actual hate campaign.
And when you can't actually address someone's arguments, it's easier to pretend they're saying something else.
Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?
There's no hate campaign against Eich.
...or you start a hate campaign yourself...
Address what I've actually advocated or STFU.
I'm really tired of this. I've explained the issue countless times now, and every bloody time some idiot ignores what I've posted and substitutes some strawman instead, responding to me as if I'm advocating some terrible injustice be meted out upon Eich because I don't agree with him on something.
...then he wouldn't have likely been donating to a hate campaign aimed at 5-10% of people he'd eventually be "leading" now would it? Can you name a pro-gay group that's also a hate campaign? Is there some gay group out there claiming, with some degree of success, that heterosexuals are a danger to children?
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Eich resigned from Mozilla. Mozilla could not have fired him or forced him to leave, but there's no reason they couldn't have put him in a role where he didn't lead Mozilla. Mozilla has many, many, jobs. Eich could have been kicked into a sideways or upstairs position without a problem.
Remember that was the entire point. Yes, I know all the Eich defenders have gone nuts the last few days claiming Eich was "fired" for "his point of view" and have modded down, silenced, and otherwise stuck your fingers in your ears when anyone's raised their hand and said "Uh, actually...", but the situation is this.
Eich was unsuitable for the role of CEO. This was not because he had stone-age views about "the ghays", but because he had shown serious judgement and respect issues. It merely happened that the thing that revealed these issues was connected to his actions in a political debate.
Eich donated $1,000 to a hate campaign. It didn't matter who or what it was supporting. In this case it was nominally a pro-Prop 8 campaign, but it was, actually, an anti-gay smear campaign, that used dog whistles and other techniques to try to look respectable. It did things like 30 second ads claiming children would be hurt by rights for gays.
After it was revealed that this is what Eich did, something that directly affected 5-10% of the Mozilla workforce, Eich's response was (paraphrased) "I'm not a bigot and you're all nasty people who don't deserve an explanation for saying I'm a bigot." At this point, it didn't matter. Eich was claiming to have no problems with gays, but had funded a campaign claiming they're a danger to children. He refused to distance himself from his actions in any way, not even a "Well, I thought it was just an anti-marriage-rights thing, I too was disappointed to see Gays demonized the way they were."
At this point, two years ago, any reasonable person would say that Eich (a) was divisive and (b) lacked judgement. And that would normally have been the end of it, because most employers would have not even thought to put him in a position where either of those issues mattered
But then some idiots at Mozilla decided to make him CEO.
Now, alternate universe time:
1. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if he said "Well, I feel uncomfortable with gay marriage, though my donation to a hate campaign was obviously misjudged and did not reflect my views on the subject. I have nothing against them myself"?
No. Probably not. Doubt many of his critics would have been entirely happy, but it would have constituted a recognition of past mistakes.
2. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if he'd made no such donation, or if a pro-Prop 8 campaign had sprung up that didn't smear gays and he'd donated to that, but it had been revealed he'd voted for Prop 8?
Almost certainly not. This would have been a clear violation of his right to free thought and to not have his views discriminated against.
3. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if Prop 8 were about inter-racial marriage and he'd donated money to the KKK?
Hell yeah he would!
4. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if Prop 8 were about Christians being banned from public office, and if he'd donated $1,000 to a campaign arguing Christians were idiots and their leaders charlatans? Oh, and Christians were regularly (actually) attacked and discriminated against in California for some reason?
Well, yes! Yes he would.
5. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if he'd announced he'd changed all his views since 2008 and would not support Prop 8 today?
No idea. I'm guessing that it would look like opportunism if done today, though if it had been done two years ago, who knows?
Either way: yes, Mozilla had options. No they didn't have to fire him if he didn't resign. And again, Eich had serious respect and judgement issues that made him unqualified for the j
The grandparent clearly understands $ATHING but we're not talking about $ATHING and the Australian initiative is not aimed at stopping $ATHING. So his point is irrelevent. Given nobody seems to be using the term HFT the way he and you are, it's safe to say you're simply wrong at this point.
Quick explanation of HFT, at least, the form that hit the headlines recently. Suppose you have two exchanges, let's call them VAMPIRES and ANGELS (to pick names at random, I mean, if I've accidentally used names reminiscent of a real exchange I apologize as that's not my intention...)
A legitimate trader wants to buy 1000 shares of X at $10. It sees 500 on VAMPIRES, and 500 on ANGELS. So it immediately, simultaneously, places both orders.
Well, it turns out VAMPIRES is kinda rigged. They've made sure their connections to every trader are the fastest possible, whereas ANGELS just uses regular telco connections. They advertise this as a feature, and everyone believes them, but it turns out the founders of VAMPIRES have a hidden agenda. They've made sure they have a fast connection to VAMPIRES, and arranged with the phone company to have an equally fast connection to ANGELS. After "resigning" from VAMPIRES to give the appearance of being uninvolved, they monitor all transactions on VAMPIRES. As soon as they see all shares for X have been told at $10, they immediately place an order for all shares of X at $10 on ANGELS, correctly deducing that the only reason someone would buy ALL the shares of X on VAMPIRES is because they're buying ALL the shares on ALL exchanges for X for $10.
Because they have a fast connection to both exchanges, the HFT traders can see the trade that just happened on VAMPIRES and successfully transmit their trade to ANGELS in less time than it takes the legitimate trader's trade to be transmitted to ANGELS.
So what does the 500ms delay do? Answer: it makes it impossible to see the trade that occurred on VAMPIRES before the accompanying trade has been received by ANGELS too. The founders of VAMPIRES sees the trade 500ms+latency after it was sent by the legitimate trader. They can place the order on ANGELS anyway, but their trade will arrive 500ms+theirlatency-legittrader'slatency on ANGELS so it'll arrive afterwards and the legitimate trader will get their shares unmolested.
An alternative, but it's not terribly reliable, is for the legitimate trader to determine the latencies to each exchange and then send each order with an appropriate delay to make sure they arrive at about the same time at each exchange. It's not 100% fool proof, but RBC was able to get around HFT traders using the technique.
Well, they are and they aren't. The terms are used in different countries to mean different things, but the activity known as "grilling" in the US is known as "barbecuing" in the UK (and I believe Australia.)
I suspect the article is written using an English dialect that uses the definition that applies to US-grilling/English-barbecuing. Not unreasonable, the world is a large place and it's not like Americans invented the English language. Why do we speak that fur'in Eurospeak anyway? Surely we should speak AMERICAN!! Hell yeah (etc)
Slashdot Mirror
I heard Christopher Reeve couldn't fly when he accepted the role of Superman too...
Forwarded email breaks all these kinds of "sender authentication" systems, and that's unlikely to change in the near future. Mailing lists are one type of forwarded email, but not the only type.
We do, ultimately, want to know an email originated with a particular account, but the anti-spammers have tied origination to logic based upon the IP address of the latest server to process the message. It's not really sane, it breaks things, it's the classic anti-spammer "trick" that ends up breaking email more than spam does.
That's a great link, thank you!
The thing I'd kinda like to know is, if this is an inside job (and things like "Mt. Gox is saying one thing but we've proven they're lying!" kinda implies that) then what was the end game?
If your business goes bankrupt, then it becomes extremely difficult to launder your supposedly stolen assets. And it's one thing to steal from your company (in some way) if you think the company is going to last decades and you can be well clear once the scam is found out, like the guys who ran Adelphia or Worldcom presumably thought. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that Mt. Gox wouldn't last very long, particularly in an unstable market, if this alleged level of fraud was going on.
Is it more likely that nothing dishonest is going on, simply bugs and other serious errors causing money to be transfered out of reach, misinterpreted as "Transaction Malleability", or were Mt. Gox's alleged scam conspirators unusually stupid?
Then perhaps he should use a real database, rather than embrace a fad started by people who don't like databases?
Could you point me at anything I've said that villifies someone for nothing more than a legal, morally and ethically acceptable act and expression of his opinion?
At best, you might be able to point out somewhere where I've criticized someone their handling of how they performed a legal act (albeit not moral or ethical).
You will not find anywhere where I've criticized anyone for expressing their opinion.
The truth is I'm not saying anything you're claiming I've posted. I've explained it several times already. But even after having it spelt out, you insist on pretending otherwise, that I'm criticising someone for expressing their point of view. Even when I've explicitly told you otherwise. Even when there's nothing I've written doing so. Even when my first post in this thread explained the issue in detail, explicitly stated his views didn't matter, and gave several examples to describe the principle involved.
The truth is you don't really care do you? What you want is to find someone to attack because you heard that Eich got fired for his political views. And so you've latched on to anyone who thinks Eich shouldn't have been CEO.
Even though that person has made it clear, repeatedly, that he doesn't believe anyone should be fired for their political opinions.
But you're going to ignore this reply and instead pretend it's arguing Eich should be fired because he's anti-gay-marriage, right?
A somewhat appropriate response, given my complaint is that the GGP was responding to an argument I wasn't making, and indeed was the exact opposite of what I was saying.
I assume from your sarcasm you're in favor of that, and think it's constructive in some way.
There's a word for that.
You continue to add nothing to the discussion, appearing to continue to argue for the sake of arguing. I made a point, illustrated it with some examples, and you then proceded to attack me for THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what I was saying.
You're not "pointing (that) out", you're just trolling. You're only succeeding at the moment for two reasons.
The first is that people who criticized Mozilla for appointing Eich CEO are being misrepresented, lied about, and having their views completely distorted. When we try to speak, we're modded to the floor. People who post irrelevent, off-topic, attacks on us are modded up. You get your groupthink.
The second is that I'm doing something I haven't done in the last few "debates" on the subject. I'm fighting you fuckers. I'm responding to each comment that implies I believe Eich should be punished for his point of view, and pointing out that this is an utterly ridiculous assertion about my point of view, that it doesn't match a single thing I said.
My suggestion to you? STFU. You're not helping cast light on anything by digging in with your idiotic misrepresentations-by-implication of what's being argued. You're simply making matters worse. You're making sure that this kind of fuck-up, where someone clearly unqualified to become a CEO because of an obvious and inherent lack of judgement and respect will get into the same position, just because a handful of idiots, like you, ignore the situation instead prefering to believe the lack of qualifications has to do with being "politically incorrect".
Because people who point out bigotry and try to stop it are the true bigots even though you never said anything related to that. They're also hypocrites, albeit using a definition of the word "hypocrite" that doesn't exist outside of the imagination of 14 year olds and nutty right wingers.
(I agree with you, lest my weary sarcasm isn't obvious. Rapidly losing the will to live here.)
Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying, you do not in any way help by blindly modding down those being misrepresented. The Eich debate has been entirely one sided not because one side is right and the other wrong, but because the pro-Eich side has gotten away will willfully misrepresenting the viewpoints of those who felt Eich was not the right man for the role of Mozilla CEO.
There's no hate campaign against Eich.
Address what I've actually advocated or STFU.
I'm really tired of this. I've explained the issue countless times now, and every bloody time some idiot ignores what I've posted and substitutes some strawman instead, responding to me as if I'm advocating some terrible injustice be meted out upon Eich because I don't agree with him on something.
Respond to what I've said, or go away. Seriously.
No, they're idiots if they're idiots.
Two examples of idiots:
1. People who read a comment like "I don't believe someone should be fired because of X, I do however believe that Y makes them unsuitable for the position", and they respond "YOU FASCIST!!! People shouldn't be fired because of X WHICH IS TOTALLY WHAT YOU SAID!!"
2. People who see things like "Z is an actual hate campaign, in this case positing the victims are dangers to children" and say "WELL UR A HATE CAMPAIGN TOO!! Because YOU SAID You DON'T THINK people should do that and THEY DID!!"
3. People who respond to things like "I think what I've said is so blatantly obvious it's hard to see how anyone but an idiot could think I said the exact opposite" and for someone to respond with "SO IF THEY DISAGREE with you THEY'RE IDIOTS???"
Those would be examples of idiots. You know, idiots. People who make easily avoidable errors because they're too stupid. People who have it explained to them twice they're misrepresenting someone's point of view who then, somehow, think the problem is disagreement rather than reading comprehension.
I'm sorry but it's beginning to look to me like the kneejerk "He must be saying Eich should be fired for his beliefs because, uh..." group are becoming incoherent. You've just posted... what... exactly? I mean, are you aware that your response not only continues to have no relevance to anything being said but is now completely unintelligible, and likewise SuperKendall just posted, uh, this.
Wonder how the abusive-moderators are going to act now, presumably picking mod options at random rather than mindlessly hitting "Flamebait" maybe?
OMG someone responded to something I actually said! I'm in heaven! Thank you!
I'm not reading into it what you are. Being "kicked upstairs" (or even sideways) isn't constructive dismissal and wouldn't be seen by someone as a threat to their employment.
It's not unusual to deal with issues like sexual harassment that way too. A mini-reorganization of positions occurs whereby employees having problems are no longer working under managers with "problems" who are, nonetheless, critical to the company and need to be in that position. While it's not a wonderful idea, and doesn't feel just, I'm not aware of any business actually getting into trouble for doing so, as long as the displaced, previously harassed, employees are in as-good-as or better positions.
What exactly makes you think I don't get that? How do you end up responding to a comment making it clear that This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Eich's. Opinions and say I "don't get" that he has different opinions?
How do you get to the point that you can read an entire post that ENDS with a comment pointing out that I would be unsuitable for similar positions because of the same damned reason and think this is about Eich's opinions?
How do you get to the point that it's pointed out to you that Eich could have easily withstood the attack if he'd restated his opinion that gays shouldn't marry but disassociated himself with his donation to a campaign that said they were a danger to children and claim this is about his opinion?
How do you get to the point that it's pointed out to you that Eich could have opinions that, if not remotely similar to my own, are at least vaguely anti-rightist, and donated to a hate group (the anti-Christian group I gave as an example), in support, and not disassociated himself from it, and as a result also show himself to be disqualified for the role, and come to the opinion this is about his opinion?
I'm failing to see what about my posts drives people to respond to them as if I'm claiming Eich should be executed for having a politically incorrect opinion, particularly when I go out of my damned way to make it clear it has nothing to do with his opinion.
Oh but you're going to respond to this as if I'm saying it's about Eich disagreeing with me, right?
Honest question: I've reread the above. I cannot see a single way anyone could read it and draw the same interpretation of it as the three first responders. Or the abusive mods, FWIW.
Could someone patiently explain to me what's going on? Why is it seen as flamebait? Why do people think it's saying Eich should be punished for his private opinions when I say the exact opposite?
I'm struggling to see your point. It's bizarre, to be honest, I have three people responding to a post making it clear that Eich's respect and judgement were at issue, demonstrated by his actions concerning Prop 8 and his subsequent reaction to being found out, not his actual opinion on Prop. 8, as if I'm saying what matters were his support for Proposition 8.
Now go back and READ the comment you're responding to and show where I say anything that claims my political speech is more important than anyone else's.
And after you've done so, explain how I can point out repeatedly, explicitly, that this isn't about Eich's views or the expression of them, and even give a range of examples of situations where Eich could have handled the situation differently, and you can come away with the impression that your response is even vaguely appropriate.
We both know why you and countless others have responded to my explanations of what actually is going on with responses instead that pretend I'm an advocate of censorship or of punishing people for disagreeing with me, or whatever else: it's because you know the argument I'm making is right. You know that Eich lacked judgement and respect, and as such was completely unsuitable for a CEO role. And you know that wasn't because of his opinions, it was because he co-funded an actual hate campaign.
And when you can't actually address someone's arguments, it's easier to pretend they're saying something else.
It's pathetic.
There's no hate campaign against Eich.
Address what I've actually advocated or STFU.
I'm really tired of this. I've explained the issue countless times now, and every bloody time some idiot ignores what I've posted and substitutes some strawman instead, responding to me as if I'm advocating some terrible injustice be meted out upon Eich because I don't agree with him on something.
Respond to what I've said, or go away. Seriously.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Eich resigned from Mozilla. Mozilla could not have fired him or forced him to leave, but there's no reason they couldn't have put him in a role where he didn't lead Mozilla. Mozilla has many, many, jobs. Eich could have been kicked into a sideways or upstairs position without a problem.
Remember that was the entire point. Yes, I know all the Eich defenders have gone nuts the last few days claiming Eich was "fired" for "his point of view" and have modded down, silenced, and otherwise stuck your fingers in your ears when anyone's raised their hand and said "Uh, actually...", but the situation is this.
Eich was unsuitable for the role of CEO. This was not because he had stone-age views about "the ghays", but because he had shown serious judgement and respect issues. It merely happened that the thing that revealed these issues was connected to his actions in a political debate.
Eich donated $1,000 to a hate campaign. It didn't matter who or what it was supporting. In this case it was nominally a pro-Prop 8 campaign, but it was, actually, an anti-gay smear campaign, that used dog whistles and other techniques to try to look respectable. It did things like 30 second ads claiming children would be hurt by rights for gays.
After it was revealed that this is what Eich did, something that directly affected 5-10% of the Mozilla workforce, Eich's response was (paraphrased) "I'm not a bigot and you're all nasty people who don't deserve an explanation for saying I'm a bigot." At this point, it didn't matter. Eich was claiming to have no problems with gays, but had funded a campaign claiming they're a danger to children. He refused to distance himself from his actions in any way, not even a "Well, I thought it was just an anti-marriage-rights thing, I too was disappointed to see Gays demonized the way they were."
At this point, two years ago, any reasonable person would say that Eich (a) was divisive and (b) lacked judgement. And that would normally have been the end of it, because most employers would have not even thought to put him in a position where either of those issues mattered
But then some idiots at Mozilla decided to make him CEO.
Now, alternate universe time:
1. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if he said "Well, I feel uncomfortable with gay marriage, though my donation to a hate campaign was obviously misjudged and did not reflect my views on the subject. I have nothing against them myself"?
No. Probably not. Doubt many of his critics would have been entirely happy, but it would have constituted a recognition of past mistakes.
2. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if he'd made no such donation, or if a pro-Prop 8 campaign had sprung up that didn't smear gays and he'd donated to that, but it had been revealed he'd voted for Prop 8?
Almost certainly not. This would have been a clear violation of his right to free thought and to not have his views discriminated against.
3. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if Prop 8 were about inter-racial marriage and he'd donated money to the KKK?
Hell yeah he would!
4. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if Prop 8 were about Christians being banned from public office, and if he'd donated $1,000 to a campaign arguing Christians were idiots and their leaders charlatans? Oh, and Christians were regularly (actually) attacked and discriminated against in California for some reason?
Well, yes! Yes he would.
5. Would Eich have been asked to not be CEO if he'd announced he'd changed all his views since 2008 and would not support Prop 8 today?
No idea. I'm guessing that it would look like opportunism if done today, though if it had been done two years ago, who knows?
Either way: yes, Mozilla had options. No they didn't have to fire him if he didn't resign. And again, Eich had serious respect and judgement issues that made him unqualified for the j
The Wayland/Mir people ;-)
The grandparent clearly understands $ATHING but we're not talking about $ATHING and the Australian initiative is not aimed at stopping $ATHING. So his point is irrelevent. Given nobody seems to be using the term HFT the way he and you are, it's safe to say you're simply wrong at this point.
What you're describing is not HFT, at least, not the definition used by people concerned about HFT.
Nope. That's not relevant to preventing HFT.
Quick explanation of HFT, at least, the form that hit the headlines recently. Suppose you have two exchanges, let's call them VAMPIRES and ANGELS (to pick names at random, I mean, if I've accidentally used names reminiscent of a real exchange I apologize as that's not my intention...)
A legitimate trader wants to buy 1000 shares of X at $10. It sees 500 on VAMPIRES, and 500 on ANGELS. So it immediately, simultaneously, places both orders.
Well, it turns out VAMPIRES is kinda rigged. They've made sure their connections to every trader are the fastest possible, whereas ANGELS just uses regular telco connections. They advertise this as a feature, and everyone believes them, but it turns out the founders of VAMPIRES have a hidden agenda. They've made sure they have a fast connection to VAMPIRES, and arranged with the phone company to have an equally fast connection to ANGELS. After "resigning" from VAMPIRES to give the appearance of being uninvolved, they monitor all transactions on VAMPIRES. As soon as they see all shares for X have been told at $10, they immediately place an order for all shares of X at $10 on ANGELS, correctly deducing that the only reason someone would buy ALL the shares of X on VAMPIRES is because they're buying ALL the shares on ALL exchanges for X for $10.
Because they have a fast connection to both exchanges, the HFT traders can see the trade that just happened on VAMPIRES and successfully transmit their trade to ANGELS in less time than it takes the legitimate trader's trade to be transmitted to ANGELS.
So what does the 500ms delay do? Answer: it makes it impossible to see the trade that occurred on VAMPIRES before the accompanying trade has been received by ANGELS too. The founders of VAMPIRES sees the trade 500ms+latency after it was sent by the legitimate trader. They can place the order on ANGELS anyway, but their trade will arrive 500ms+theirlatency-legittrader'slatency on ANGELS so it'll arrive afterwards and the legitimate trader will get their shares unmolested.
An alternative, but it's not terribly reliable, is for the legitimate trader to determine the latencies to each exchange and then send each order with an appropriate delay to make sure they arrive at about the same time at each exchange. It's not 100% fool proof, but RBC was able to get around HFT traders using the technique.
Well, they are and they aren't. The terms are used in different countries to mean different things, but the activity known as "grilling" in the US is known as "barbecuing" in the UK (and I believe Australia.)
I suspect the article is written using an English dialect that uses the definition that applies to US-grilling/English-barbecuing. Not unreasonable, the world is a large place and it's not like Americans invented the English language. Why do we speak that fur'in Eurospeak anyway? Surely we should speak AMERICAN!! Hell yeah (etc)