I'm aware that HFT and similar frequent traders generate the lion's share of the trade volume. It's irrelevant to me how big that share is, be it 90% or 99.9999% because volume is in itself a pretty useless metric.
You are explicitly speaking of "algos trading back and forth". That would naturally generate a lot of low relevance volume.
I see no evidence that any of these market games is at all harmful to outsiders. Sure, someone probably lost some fingers and toes in this goof, but so what? I find it remarkable how little damage people can point to in these accidents.
Sorry guys for questioning the thought bubble where you think a manager says "get it done" and the only impediments are lazy people and not the actual difficulty of a task.
I don't see evidence that the actual difficulty of the project is relevant here or all that hard. They aren't trying to do the impossible, just scale up well-known systems a bit. Meanwhile the cost overruns are small enough that they'll probably keep being funded. I think it's just another cost plus contract being gamed a bit aggressively.
When it's in response to an obvious joke, yes. Look at the volume and tell me that's not a lot of so-called level headed serious investors acting like someone yelled BOO in a henhouse.
Again, the price only shifted 1%. That indicates to me that this casino attitude was not widespread.
No need for the scare quotes. Owning your own means of transportation that can go almost anywhere is an obvious boon to freedom.
Conversely, how long from that point will high-end cars, built for paranoids and assholes are programmed NOT to stop for pedestrians, etc., but instead to knock them out of the way with a directed blast of sound or wind? Or a 'pain beam'? Or a water-cannon?
This is assault, which is a felony for both the driver/owner of the vehicle and the business making the vehicle and it generates considerable potential for negligent homicide too. It's not going to happen in today's world.
How long until advertising takes the form of a car that's cheaper for you to own, but when you tell it to take you to Chili's, instead takes you to Apple-Bee's because Apple-Bee's is a partner of whoever made your car, and Chili's ISN'T? Or you tell your car to take you to Wal-Mart and it drives you to Target instead? ETC. ETC. ETC.? If you thought multi-colored blinking popup ads were annoying, wait until a destination POPS UP IN FRONT OF YOUR CAR!
If you bought it, you get the strings that come with it.
Yes, how dare the US government insist on there being some standards and paperwork for a flying machine that moves at freeway speed, weighs as much as a child, has spinning blades of doom, a battery that can catch fire if poked wrong and will be built by a company that has trouble taping a box closed.
And does nothing to actual develop these standards.
Only if by "it" you're just talking about the bailout itself and not the crash.
No, I speak of both.One can't consider the crash in absence of the bailout.
Car analogy time: a car crashed. The cops (government) showed up to investigate, the politicians bicker, and somehow they ended up writing more laws (regulations) as a response. That there was a government response doesn't say anything about whether the car crash was caused by free markets or lack of it.
Car analogy time: a car crashes and the driver gets the local government to pay for any damage he does. He then crashes again a few years later and gets the government to do it again. This pattern repeats for the past century or so of this guy's driving record with him getting more and more aggressive with his driving as the years go on.
You do realize that broadband is nothing like a free market? It's heavily regulated by the federal government, which according to the theory I was protesting in the first place, is necessary for a "free market" to exist.
Deregulating banks wan supposed to free up capital and introduce more-efficient financial structures that would more properly react to market needs. What happened instead? A massive implosion of wealth that wipes trillions of dollars in assets off the books and resulted in the single biggest transfer of wealth (and that from poor to rich) in US history. And here we are again, fighting any kind of regulation whatsoever, like none of that happened.
Let's note that deregulating banks did do that. That need still exists. We still want capital "freed" up. We still want more-efficient financial structures. And the rich lose more proportionally than the poor do in these bubble bursts IMHO. Capital is just a better return on effort in general than labor is in today's high competition world.
Jeez, you guys make me want to empty this bottle of scotch down my gullet, and then bash my head in with it. The overwhelming stupid is just unbearable.
Now you tell us. What other secrets are you hiding?
This is the point of evidence - to distinguish between hypotheses. When facts don't, then they aren't evidence. The list presented earlier is such an example. There are at least thousands of weather-related events to cherry-pick through each year. So it should come as no surprise that we have lots of rare weather events which can be frivolously blamed on AGW.
world temp has risen 0.7C over past 10 years
we have lost permafrost that has led to the draining of 10,000 lakes worldwide
each year an extra 10,000 sq km of ocean is created from melting arctic ice sheet
in Sept 2005 an area of the arctic ice sheet the size of Alaska vanished.
In 2004 the first ever hurricane in Brazil in the southern hemisphere,
Hurrcane Vince landed in Huelve, Spain, the first tropical cyclone ever recorded in Europe.
So what? Most of this stuff would have happened anyway. This is the big problem with the current debate, too much of it is based on confirmation bias. The real evidence will come not now, but in the coming centuries.
It seem you are implying that corruption cannot happen in the free market without government involvement. The government is a tool, just like guns. The biggest evil bogeymen are the ones that use that tool to do evil, which are typically corporations.
Government agencies are corporations with sovereign immunity.
Until we can produce a case of a planet where the temperature rose 1.5 degrees and civilization got into trouble, then there is absolutely no reason to just go for it and see.
Well, Earth is going to do that. So we'll have our test case. But what reason is there to expect that we'll see trouble from such a small rise in temperature?
What ever happened to scientific curiosity? Doesn't anybody want to know what will happen if we heat up the planet?
Last I looked, scientific curiosity hasn't gone anywhere. It's still there, should you decide to reach for it. And add me to the list of people who would like to know, beforehand, what happens when we "heat up the planet".
No, a free market requires regulation, but it can self-regulate as well.
but again, this is an argument against corruption, not against government. again, the problem with regulatory capture is large market players corrupting the rules. so you want to heal your sick government, not weaken it further, thereby giving large market players yet even more ways to abuse you. and they will
This argument doesn't make sense. Corruption happens because governments and their agents have power that they can readily monetize. So it is better to give them more power that they can monetize further? Or perhaps convert to even nobler coin such as establishing a tyranny?
but certain people, they just utterly lack the awareness that the government is not the only evil bogeyman in the world. many times in fact, like regulatory capture, the government isn't really the ultimate bogeyman, but just the front for the real villains: plutocracy
They are by far the biggest, evil bogeymen out there.
Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions
You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone.
Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.
But you remember Ukraine ONLY, not North Caucasus, not Volga region. Why?
Because most of the deaths were Ukrainian as reported by Wikipedia's sources. And Ukrainians would have died elsewhere than just in the Ukraine. A lot of people had been moved around during this period.
Second, I find it interesting that considerable argument has been put forth that there was a weather/climate contribution to the Holodomor, but no one can say what this contribution was. Along this vein, I see no evidence that Romania was suffering from this famine despite being right next to the Ukraine. Instead, their cereal production was higher in 1933 (which would have been the peak of the famine) than in 1932, despite a nasty economic depression.
1) "Terror" famine in 30-s was EVERYWHERE in USSR. There are some territorial variations of famine but they are depended on structure of agriculture, not on nationality. Being a grandson of kulak I know these facts from my parents.
Those "territorial variations" ended up with Ukraine getting much harder than anywhere else.
2) The famine was result of mass exchange of grain to Western industrial technologies, and destruction of peasantry created masses of hungry industrial workers. Both were needed to survive WWII.
This is an interesting rationalization. We have here the bald assertions that Russia had to starve Ukrainians in order to have industrial technologies and that there had to be "destruction of peasantry" resulting in "masses of hungry industrial workers" in order to survive WWII.
The US went through trying times too during that part of history, but they didn't have to starve millions of an uppity ethnic group in order to survive those times.
You just went well beyond calling it a "practical weapon". So I think the original poster's argument remains intact. It's not a perfect mass murderer's weapon for several obvious reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware that HFT and similar frequent traders generate the lion's share of the trade volume. It's irrelevant to me how big that share is, be it 90% or 99.9999% because volume is in itself a pretty useless metric.
You are explicitly speaking of "algos trading back and forth". That would naturally generate a lot of low relevance volume.
I see no evidence that any of these market games is at all harmful to outsiders. Sure, someone probably lost some fingers and toes in this goof, but so what? I find it remarkable how little damage people can point to in these accidents.
Sorry guys for questioning the thought bubble where you think a manager says "get it done" and the only impediments are lazy people and not the actual difficulty of a task.
I don't see evidence that the actual difficulty of the project is relevant here or all that hard. They aren't trying to do the impossible, just scale up well-known systems a bit. Meanwhile the cost overruns are small enough that they'll probably keep being funded. I think it's just another cost plus contract being gamed a bit aggressively.
When it's in response to an obvious joke, yes. Look at the volume and tell me that's not a lot of so-called level headed serious investors acting like someone yelled BOO in a henhouse.
Again, the price only shifted 1%. That indicates to me that this casino attitude was not widespread.
Crowd-sourcing is better.
FOSS is very good.
Neither one is even remotely a replacement for traditional capital markets and crowd-sourcing is a capitalist system.
It goes a long way to putting the lie to any claims of the market being anything but a casino driven by random fluctuations.
Because a small fluctuation on a single stock is damning evidence for the market casino?
Just don't go around telling the rest of us that we don't love freedom as much as you because we disagree.
Freedom is not absence of consequence. I have to say that you don't understand freedom much less love it.
is in part about "freedom,"
No need for the scare quotes. Owning your own means of transportation that can go almost anywhere is an obvious boon to freedom.
Conversely, how long from that point will high-end cars, built for paranoids and assholes are programmed NOT to stop for pedestrians, etc., but instead to knock them out of the way with a directed blast of sound or wind? Or a 'pain beam'? Or a water-cannon?
This is assault, which is a felony for both the driver/owner of the vehicle and the business making the vehicle and it generates considerable potential for negligent homicide too. It's not going to happen in today's world.
How long until advertising takes the form of a car that's cheaper for you to own, but when you tell it to take you to Chili's, instead takes you to Apple-Bee's because Apple-Bee's is a partner of whoever made your car, and Chili's ISN'T? Or you tell your car to take you to Wal-Mart and it drives you to Target instead? ETC. ETC. ETC.? If you thought multi-colored blinking popup ads were annoying, wait until a destination POPS UP IN FRONT OF YOUR CAR!
If you bought it, you get the strings that come with it.
I think it'd make an even better April 1 story. After all, we've been through this a bunch of times.
I wonder how the myopic thinkers will react to this scenario. Of course, we'll have to wait a decade for them to realize what has already happened.
Or we could realize that attitude won't keep industry in the US.
You could read the IPCC report.
I have. They do not have evidence to back those claims for small changes in temperature.
Overall, it doesn't look good.
I think here the point of the IPCC is to make it not look good.
Yes, how dare the US government insist on there being some standards and paperwork for a flying machine that moves at freeway speed, weighs as much as a child, has spinning blades of doom, a battery that can catch fire if poked wrong and will be built by a company that has trouble taping a box closed.
And does nothing to actual develop these standards.
Only if by "it" you're just talking about the bailout itself and not the crash.
No, I speak of both.One can't consider the crash in absence of the bailout.
Car analogy time: a car crashed. The cops (government) showed up to investigate, the politicians bicker, and somehow they ended up writing more laws (regulations) as a response. That there was a government response doesn't say anything about whether the car crash was caused by free markets or lack of it.
Car analogy time: a car crashes and the driver gets the local government to pay for any damage he does. He then crashes again a few years later and gets the government to do it again. This pattern repeats for the past century or so of this guy's driving record with him getting more and more aggressive with his driving as the years go on.
And those changes would be? I'm hearing a good part of a meter rise in sea level and barely detectable changes in weather patterns and rainfall.
The self-regulation that resulted in a massive taxpayer-backed bailout?
"Massive taxpayer-backed bailout" implies it wasn't a free market.
Deregulating banks wan supposed to free up capital and introduce more-efficient financial structures that would more properly react to market needs. What happened instead? A massive implosion of wealth that wipes trillions of dollars in assets off the books and resulted in the single biggest transfer of wealth (and that from poor to rich) in US history. And here we are again, fighting any kind of regulation whatsoever, like none of that happened.
Let's note that deregulating banks did do that. That need still exists. We still want capital "freed" up. We still want more-efficient financial structures. And the rich lose more proportionally than the poor do in these bubble bursts IMHO. Capital is just a better return on effort in general than labor is in today's high competition world.
Jeez, you guys make me want to empty this bottle of scotch down my gullet, and then bash my head in with it. The overwhelming stupid is just unbearable.
Go for it.
Now you tell us. What other secrets are you hiding?
This is the point of evidence - to distinguish between hypotheses. When facts don't, then they aren't evidence. The list presented earlier is such an example. There are at least thousands of weather-related events to cherry-pick through each year. So it should come as no surprise that we have lots of rare weather events which can be frivolously blamed on AGW.
world temp has risen 0.7C over past 10 years we have lost permafrost that has led to the draining of 10,000 lakes worldwide
each year an extra 10,000 sq km of ocean is created from melting arctic ice sheet
in Sept 2005 an area of the arctic ice sheet the size of Alaska vanished.
In 2004 the first ever hurricane in Brazil in the southern hemisphere,
Hurrcane Vince landed in Huelve, Spain, the first tropical cyclone ever recorded in Europe.
So what? Most of this stuff would have happened anyway. This is the big problem with the current debate, too much of it is based on confirmation bias. The real evidence will come not now, but in the coming centuries.
It seem you are implying that corruption cannot happen in the free market without government involvement. The government is a tool, just like guns. The biggest evil bogeymen are the ones that use that tool to do evil, which are typically corporations.
Government agencies are corporations with sovereign immunity.
Until we can produce a case of a planet where the temperature rose 1.5 degrees and civilization got into trouble, then there is absolutely no reason to just go for it and see.
Well, Earth is going to do that. So we'll have our test case. But what reason is there to expect that we'll see trouble from such a small rise in temperature?
What ever happened to scientific curiosity? Doesn't anybody want to know what will happen if we heat up the planet?
Last I looked, scientific curiosity hasn't gone anywhere. It's still there, should you decide to reach for it. And add me to the list of people who would like to know, beforehand, what happens when we "heat up the planet".
so a free market requires government regulation
No, a free market requires regulation, but it can self-regulate as well.
but again, this is an argument against corruption, not against government. again, the problem with regulatory capture is large market players corrupting the rules. so you want to heal your sick government, not weaken it further, thereby giving large market players yet even more ways to abuse you. and they will
This argument doesn't make sense. Corruption happens because governments and their agents have power that they can readily monetize. So it is better to give them more power that they can monetize further? Or perhaps convert to even nobler coin such as establishing a tyranny?
but certain people, they just utterly lack the awareness that the government is not the only evil bogeyman in the world. many times in fact, like regulatory capture, the government isn't really the ultimate bogeyman, but just the front for the real villains: plutocracy
They are by far the biggest, evil bogeymen out there.
Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions
You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone.
Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.
But you remember Ukraine ONLY, not North Caucasus, not Volga region. Why?
Because most of the deaths were Ukrainian as reported by Wikipedia's sources. And Ukrainians would have died elsewhere than just in the Ukraine. A lot of people had been moved around during this period.
Second, I find it interesting that considerable argument has been put forth that there was a weather/climate contribution to the Holodomor, but no one can say what this contribution was. Along this vein, I see no evidence that Romania was suffering from this famine despite being right next to the Ukraine. Instead, their cereal production was higher in 1933 (which would have been the peak of the famine) than in 1932, despite a nasty economic depression.
1) "Terror" famine in 30-s was EVERYWHERE in USSR. There are some territorial variations of famine but they are depended on structure of agriculture, not on nationality. Being a grandson of kulak I know these facts from my parents.
Those "territorial variations" ended up with Ukraine getting much harder than anywhere else.
2) The famine was result of mass exchange of grain to Western industrial technologies, and destruction of peasantry created masses of hungry industrial workers. Both were needed to survive WWII.
This is an interesting rationalization. We have here the bald assertions that Russia had to starve Ukrainians in order to have industrial technologies and that there had to be "destruction of peasantry" resulting in "masses of hungry industrial workers" in order to survive WWII.
The US went through trying times too during that part of history, but they didn't have to starve millions of an uppity ethnic group in order to survive those times.
You just went well beyond calling it a "practical weapon". So I think the original poster's argument remains intact. It's not a perfect mass murderer's weapon for several obvious reasons.
Except when it's not, of course. Fascism really is about pursuit of power. How that pursuit gets rationalized can be left or right-wing.