Merely hiding the information means that when Google sells its database to companies, those hidden records will be sold too. Then the issue propagates.
You have to understand that Google is a business, whose primary responsibility is to its shareholders. It must do anything that will improve shareholder value, which right now only means spying on people, but when the next great competitor arises and they're struggling they'll be selling their assets. Anything they have collected by then will be fair game. So it's important to *remove* data that doesn't belong to them much before then.
No, I think you don't get my point. I'm saying privacy by obscurity works. Without an explicit search engine mapping of search terms to the website, the fact that some random site links to that website is not a major concern.
That would be wrong. They should remove it properly. It's not like they don't have the capability to do so. They do it every day for people who try to game the search engine.
And as for having the information still available on websites, the by far most common way for people to find the website is through a search engine. Remove a website from the search engine indexes, and the website might as well not exist for the _vast_ majority of people.
We lived perfectly well 20 years ago before Google existed. The world didn't explode, just because we didn't know everything that someone else didn't want us to know. We had muckrakers, aka investigative journalists, who went looking to unearth secrets that were broadly in the public interest. But there weren't enough journalists to cover everybody's little secrets, most people were safe from having their laundry aired, and the journos had to prioritise to try to cover the most important stuff that actually mattered.
You mean, like a dating service? Seems to me the smartest thing to do is to use the best
tool for the job.
Heh, no. That would just prove they're incapable of reaching their life goals without it being all done for them. Not very smart, if you ask me. Helpless, sure.
Every animal when faced with hunger, will try to eat anything that looks remotely edible to it. The belief that neanderthals wouldn't be eating vegetables regularly is ridiculous.
Actually, if they were that smart, they should be able to find each other without a dating service. Or if they don't have time for that, at least build robots that go out there looking for smart people to date...
If they end up having a monopoly on the information, they can just sell it to others after they've collected it. So end effect is, lots of people have your data, but Google gets to profit from it TWICE. Way to go, knucklehead. Once the fox is allowed into the henhouse, it's game over. The only winning move is to kill the fox.
You know, humanity tests don't even need conversation skills. You could take a photo of a fertilized egg and show it to about a billion people, and they would claim it's human.
You are confusing speculation and stealing. It's an easy mistake to make because speculation adds no meaningful transactions to the price discovery dynamics, but it isn't stealing, it's gambling. HFTs are very good at card counting (to take an analogy) and therefore make money from their gambles consistently.
Traditionally, speculators are accepted on markets because they will accept to hold an item speculatively during periods of time. This helps a buyer at 10AM to connect with a seller at 3PM. They aren't both in the market at the same time, so can't actually trade. However, the speculator is there all day, and short sells at 10AM to the buy, and buys from the seller at 3PM. This is needed in MANY (all caps) markets, because there isn't enough activity in them during the day. Of course, the speculator takes his cut, which is the price that the buyer and seller must pay for not bothering to be in the market at the same time.
Market makers usually operate at a loss, and make it up from preferential deals with brokers and exchanges. They do not trade all markets, only those where their losses can be limited adequately.
At least, do we want prosthetics that are better than human limbs in some areas but by far not
all? How long 'til you get to hear "we'd hire you if you would replace that limb with $tool, and
if you really want that job you would do it"?
Yes. I predict the most popular prosthetic will be in the genital area.
Sorry, front running is a scam where the suckers are not given the information on time *on purpose*. This isn't front running, because everybody gets all the information at the same time *from the exchanges*. The suckers are suckers because they don't invest enough in technology and tech people, so they have subpar equipment and can't compete. Don't bring a bicycle to an F1 race. Or at least if you do, don't complain the F1 guys are cheating. It just makes you look silly.
meh, *any* difference between you and others is an advantage. Why do you think finance companies hire bright people to work for them? Because having a bright employee is an advantage. Same with buying the latest technology, having the greatest speed, working out the best tax loopholes etc.
So what? The book also notes the underlying problem - big traders with predictable behavior. Once that goes away, the so-called "rent-seeking"
stopped. If HFT is a "tax", then it's a tax on traders with poor trading behavior.
That's just a vulnerability that allows the exploit to work (to take a computer analogy). The real problem is that the big traders want to both have their cake and eat it. They want to be able to sell large quantities of stocks without changing the price, which is not how markets are even supposed to behave. When you sell a large number of items, you depress the price. That's supply and demand.
If you're a big trader, and you sell lots of shares, then the price of those shares goes down (small traders don't have that problem as their quantities don't have market impact). By the time you've sold all the quantity you wanted to sell, you're not getting top dollar any more. So what do you do? You complain that HFT are stealing your imaginary profit, all that money you thought you could get by selling your stocks without taking into account supply and demand. But in reality, there wasn't a lot of demand for your stock in the first place.
You flooded the market, and the natural price drop happened. To ask for anything else is to ask for a repeal of supply and demand. To ask for a slowdown in trading is to ask for a slowdown in supply and demand. And if you don't have supply and demand, you don't get an equilibrium where both sellers and buyers are happy. Which is kind of obvious. If a big trader is able to sell all his shares at the top price, he'll be happy. But the buyers won't be, because they paid too much.
Nope. It will remain a virtual computer game with real consequences. Why? Because people's pensions are kept in the markets. So when someone makes a little profit from the money sloshing around those markets, it's coming out of someone's pension fund, someone who most likely isn't a market participant, just a working stiff who has been convinced that their retirement needs will be funded by gambling.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to understand that Google is a business, whose primary responsibility is to its shareholders. It must do anything that will improve shareholder value, which right now only means spying on people, but when the next great competitor arises and they're struggling they'll be selling their assets. Anything they have collected by then will be fair game. So it's important to *remove* data that doesn't belong to them much before then.
No, I think you don't get my point. I'm saying privacy by obscurity works. Without an explicit search engine mapping of search terms to the website, the fact that some random site links to that website is not a major concern.
And as for having the information still available on websites, the by far most common way for people to find the website is through a search engine. Remove a website from the search engine indexes, and the website might as well not exist for the _vast_ majority of people.
We lived perfectly well 20 years ago before Google existed. The world didn't explode, just because we didn't know everything that someone else didn't want us to know. We had muckrakers, aka investigative journalists, who went looking to unearth secrets that were broadly in the public interest. But there weren't enough journalists to cover everybody's little secrets, most people were safe from having their laundry aired, and the journos had to prioritise to try to cover the most important stuff that actually mattered.
Verb must you add, if like Yoda talk you would, hrmmmmm.
What's your damage, Heather? Alpha is the new Beta.
What's the terminal velocity on Mars?
Heh, no. That would just prove they're incapable of reaching their life goals without it being all done for them. Not very smart, if you ask me. Helpless, sure.
Every animal when faced with hunger, will try to eat anything that looks remotely edible to it. The belief that neanderthals wouldn't be eating vegetables regularly is ridiculous.
Actually, if they were that smart, they should be able to find each other without a dating service. Or if they don't have time for that, at least build robots that go out there looking for smart people to date...
Thank you. My faith in humanity had been shatnered, but now I feel sufficiently complemented again.
Gee Brain, what do you want to tonight?
The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to push the universe up the energy hill!
Egad!
We hardly knew ya. Too bad you learnt nothing from your dad, Netscape.
If they end up having a monopoly on the information, they can just sell it to others after they've collected it. So end effect is, lots of people have your data, but Google gets to profit from it TWICE. Way to go, knucklehead. Once the fox is allowed into the henhouse, it's game over. The only winning move is to kill the fox.
I thought it was a reference to Game of Thrones. There's a lot of be-toppings on that show.
No matter how many women you impregnate, your first baby is still 9 months away, young grasshopper.
Why you hate Ukrainian boy? You try discriminatio to me? I no play game I real! Help me everybody I repression to me!
You know, humanity tests don't even need conversation skills. You could take a photo of a fertilized egg and show it to about a billion people, and they would claim it's human.
Traditionally, speculators are accepted on markets because they will accept to hold an item speculatively during periods of time. This helps a buyer at 10AM to connect with a seller at 3PM. They aren't both in the market at the same time, so can't actually trade. However, the speculator is there all day, and short sells at 10AM to the buy, and buys from the seller at 3PM. This is needed in MANY (all caps) markets, because there isn't enough activity in them during the day. Of course, the speculator takes his cut, which is the price that the buyer and seller must pay for not bothering to be in the market at the same time.
Market makers usually operate at a loss, and make it up from preferential deals with brokers and exchanges. They do not trade all markets, only those where their losses can be limited adequately.
Yes. I predict the most popular prosthetic will be in the genital area.
Sorry, front running is a scam where the suckers are not given the information on time *on purpose*. This isn't front running, because everybody gets all the information at the same time *from the exchanges*. The suckers are suckers because they don't invest enough in technology and tech people, so they have subpar equipment and can't compete. Don't bring a bicycle to an F1 race. Or at least if you do, don't complain the F1 guys are cheating. It just makes you look silly.
meh, *any* difference between you and others is an advantage. Why do you think finance companies hire bright people to work for them? Because having a bright employee is an advantage. Same with buying the latest technology, having the greatest speed, working out the best tax loopholes etc.
That's just a vulnerability that allows the exploit to work (to take a computer analogy). The real problem is that the big traders want to both have their cake and eat it. They want to be able to sell large quantities of stocks without changing the price, which is not how markets are even supposed to behave. When you sell a large number of items, you depress the price. That's supply and demand.
If you're a big trader, and you sell lots of shares, then the price of those shares goes down (small traders don't have that problem as their quantities don't have market impact). By the time you've sold all the quantity you wanted to sell, you're not getting top dollar any more. So what do you do? You complain that HFT are stealing your imaginary profit, all that money you thought you could get by selling your stocks without taking into account supply and demand. But in reality, there wasn't a lot of demand for your stock in the first place.
You flooded the market, and the natural price drop happened. To ask for anything else is to ask for a repeal of supply and demand. To ask for a slowdown in trading is to ask for a slowdown in supply and demand. And if you don't have supply and demand, you don't get an equilibrium where both sellers and buyers are happy. Which is kind of obvious. If a big trader is able to sell all his shares at the top price, he'll be happy. But the buyers won't be, because they paid too much.
Nope. It will remain a virtual computer game with real consequences. Why? Because people's pensions are kept in the markets. So when someone makes a little profit from the money sloshing around those markets, it's coming out of someone's pension fund, someone who most likely isn't a market participant, just a working stiff who has been convinced that their retirement needs will be funded by gambling.
Mate, what's the foreign word you talking about? Bruce.