An average investor does not have access to a FUTURES market, which was my point. No sane investment advisor would ever recommend it, considering the 10 to 1 or so leverage. Sure, investors can buy 1 share of an ETF, worth 100 bucks. A single oil contract represents $145,000 of oil! So even though there is arbitrage between ETFs and the futures, average investors would never trade enough in these markets to move a futures market a single tick.
On one hand, I completely agree with the sentiment of the poster - it's ridiculous to think that a spam campaign can affect a futures market - an average investor doesn't have access to such markets, and doesn't even have enough capital to trade a single oil futures contract. On the other hand, though, I've seen rumors of this sort achieve exactly that result. On March 27th, 2007, around 5PM ET, a rumor was spread all over the wire services that Iran had fired on an US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The futures markets were closed, and electronic trading was very thin, so because of this rumor, the futures prices was taken all the way from $63 to $68 a barrel, almost 10% - in less than 5 minutes!! Within 15 minutes, though, the news spread that this rumor was not confirmed, and after 15 minutes of frenetic trading, the prices settled back to around $64 (I guess a dollar of a risk premium was priced in, just in case!). Within those 15 minutes, even with the markets closed, millions of dollars changed hands. Here's a link to a story from that day - http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2722461720070327 . Predictably, no one knows where the rumor came from, yet someone profited quite handsomely off of it.
I am from MIT. Most of our "land lines" use static IPs, which are issued to you by the Information Systems. In principle, nothing stops us from using other people's IPs within the same dormitory, but it would be quite a hassle to find a free one. (Some mentioned that because of this, an IP might not identify someone with enough certainty for use in the court.) To use DHCP, for wireless connections, for example, we have to register with our MIT ID and password, so presumably that identifies us clearly as well.
There is one very important point here that most people dismiss as a technicality.
''..did not allow MIT time to send any notice as the law requires.''
Unless things have change, this is how the process works (I have received such a notice a couple of times). Big Bad Wold finds copyrighted material at my IP address. They complain to the main MIT computing abuse office (stopit@mit.edu). That office sends me an e-mail, urging me to remove the material as soon as possible, or else, my network connection will be disabled in 2 days. If I don't comply, MIT doesn't guarantee any more protection and might be forced to release my name. If I do, they tell "Big Bad Wolf" that the issue is taken care of, and the issue is settled. Either way, this notice is *not a technicality*, but a way for MIT to protect its students and give them time to remove the material without further repercussions. Worst case scenario, they will disconnect the network drop that the student is using. However, in the past, these were individual media magnates complaining about copyrights they were owners of. It's the RIAA this time, and things might be more serious, but I think MIT will stay faithful to this policy, given that they receive these notices. I certainly hope so!
In general, MIT is really one better colleges in protecting privacy and "intellectual freedom", and they always go for the policy of as few restrictions as possible.
Seriously, though, Harvard administration has never been as vehement in defending the students' privacy as MIT's - seems like they just usually follow suit of the other Boston schools, while MIT is always among the first to respond to such threats - like Metallica suing colleges over Napster.
It's a layman article, and isn't meant to be anything more than that. The connection really is poor, though. However, the study of "microfluids" really is important for specialized applications. A technical descriptions is available here:
Slashdot Mirror
Strange that this reads like a PR puff piece..
An average investor does not have access to a FUTURES market, which was my point. No sane investment advisor would ever recommend it, considering the 10 to 1 or so leverage. Sure, investors can buy 1 share of an ETF, worth 100 bucks. A single oil contract represents $145,000 of oil! So even though there is arbitrage between ETFs and the futures, average investors would never trade enough in these markets to move a futures market a single tick.
On one hand, I completely agree with the sentiment of the poster - it's ridiculous to think that a spam campaign can affect a futures market - an average investor doesn't have access to such markets, and doesn't even have enough capital to trade a single oil futures contract.
On the other hand, though, I've seen rumors of this sort achieve exactly that result. On March 27th, 2007, around 5PM ET, a rumor was spread all over the wire services that Iran had fired on an US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The futures markets were closed, and electronic trading was very thin, so because of this rumor, the futures prices was taken all the way from $63 to $68 a barrel, almost 10% - in less than 5 minutes!! Within 15 minutes, though, the news spread that this rumor was not confirmed, and after 15 minutes of frenetic trading, the prices settled back to around $64 (I guess a dollar of a risk premium was priced in, just in case!). Within those 15 minutes, even with the markets closed, millions of dollars changed hands. Here's a link to a story from that day - http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2722461720070327 . Predictably, no one knows where the rumor came from, yet someone profited quite handsomely off of it.
Best. Game. Ever.
You sound pretty sore about it. This is twice you posted that.. Maybe you would LIKE to work behind a computer all day? :)
I mostly agree. What's most frustrating is the horrible misleading title.. Not at all what one would expect after seeing it.
One way to tell :)
I am from MIT.
Most of our "land lines" use static IPs, which are issued to you by the Information Systems. In principle, nothing stops us from using other people's IPs within the same dormitory, but it would be quite a hassle to find a free one.
(Some mentioned that because of this, an IP might not identify someone with enough certainty for use in the court.)
To use DHCP, for wireless connections, for example, we have to register with our MIT ID and password, so presumably that identifies us clearly as well.
There is one very important point here that most people dismiss as a technicality.
''..did not allow MIT time to send any notice as the law requires.''
Unless things have change, this is how the process works (I have received such a notice a couple of times). Big Bad Wold finds copyrighted material at my IP address. They complain to the main MIT computing abuse office (stopit@mit.edu). That office sends me an e-mail, urging me to remove the material as soon as possible, or else, my network connection will be disabled in 2 days. If I don't comply, MIT doesn't guarantee any more protection and might be forced to release my name. If I do, they tell "Big Bad Wolf" that the issue is taken care of, and the issue is settled. Either way, this notice is *not a technicality*, but a way for MIT to protect its students and give them time to remove the material without further repercussions. Worst case scenario, they will disconnect the network drop that the student is using.
However, in the past, these were individual media magnates complaining about copyrights they were owners of. It's the RIAA this time, and things might be more serious, but I think MIT will stay faithful to this policy, given that they receive these notices. I certainly hope so!
In general, MIT is really one better colleges in protecting privacy and "intellectual freedom", and they always go for the policy of as few restrictions as possible.
Seriously, though, Harvard administration has never been as vehement in defending the students' privacy as MIT's - seems like they just usually follow suit of the other Boston schools, while MIT is always among the first to respond to such threats - like Metallica suing colleges over Napster.
It's a layman article, and isn't meant to be anything more than that. The connection really is poor, though. However, the study of "microfluids" really is important for specialized applications. A technical descriptions is available here:
8 .h tml
http://www.devicelink.com/ivdt/archive/00/11/00
I find the name "lab on a chip" misleading.