Maybe you should do some research before you just mouth off about something you obviously have no clue about. Not only have several academic studies proven the value of high-frequency trading to liquidity and improvements in market structure (Smith, Brogaard), but the common misconception that it was HFT that caused the flash crash has been shown to be false. why don't you investigate what spreads were before HFT, and tell me why it's better for people to pay $0.05/share after decimilization, or 12.5 cents/share before it? Or maybe you can just google HFT, and copy and paste the first thing that you find. Oh wait, you already did that.
ISECOM's RAV and CIOview's SecurityNOW?
on
Security Metrics
·
· Score: 1
I didn't see anything in the note about Risk Assessment Values from isecom.org, which is the foremost methodology for determining risk based on factual evidence of an infrastructure, as well as the other elements of one's security presence (physical, social, etc.). SecurityNOW! from CIOview (www.cioview.com) integrates this idea into a powerful tool in which one can assess IT investments based expected loss, and measure ROI.
Of course, I'm biased being a volunteer at ISECOM, but I still think these are important to bring up in any Security Metrics conversation.
For those who don't have a good understanding of Space Elevators other than some Sci-Fi you may have read that was written 50 years ago:
A space elevator consists of 5 primary components:
1. Base Station
2. Ribbon
3. Climber
4. Counterweight
5. Power system
This contest is an attempt to trigger innovation in the area of power and climber, not in the ribbon, station or counter-weight. The ribbon would need to be a carbon nanotube-based composite that is a matter of microns thick and very wide. The width of the ribbon would change based on whether it is in Earth's atmosphere (very thin - less affected by wind and less of a danger) or outer space (very thick, to be able to recover from damage from debris). The ribbon would stretch from a base station to approximately 125,000 km to geosynchronous earth orbit, at which point there will be a counterweight - initially the spacecraft used to deploy the ribbon and eventually an orbital station.
The climber drives up the ribbon with an electric engine, and will need to be powered wirelessly. Currently the predominate thinking is to use a laser to hit solar-panels on the climber that are tuned for the particular wavelength of light that the laser is emitting. Initial Space Elevators, built in about 10 years for about $10 B, will be able to carry 20 tons of material at a cost of ~$300/kg (contrast that with the next-gen shuttle - $100 Billion, with a capacity of 40 tons @ ~$10,000/kg), with subsequent elevators able to carry up to 200 tons at a cost of $100/kg.
I believe the only proper response to you is: shut up. Don't be such a putz, that was a funny joke (and my level of scientific literacy destroys your theorem anyway).
This was actually most likely the result of a multicast or "slow consumer" storm. In a multicast network environment, often desktops are overloaded by all of the filtering they must perform (multicast sends nearly everything to everybody). Sometimes some desktops will miss a packet and ask for a retransmission. Often, this involves retransmitting in multicast-form - that is to all of the consumers. If this happens too many times, you get a storm. No matter what the NYSE does (unless they buy our technology - email for info if you'd like), they will not be able to avoid this happening in the future. It is a condition of middleware systems that were not meant to handle the volumes of modern stock markets, rather than a simple glitch in the network infrastructure.
Check out cioview.com's software TCOnow! for Windows and Linux. The software takes into account every major factor in a TCO analysis to give you a side-by-side comparison. Feel free to send me an e-mail if you have any questions (dlauer AT cioview dot com), or would like to see a demonstration.
I worked at a company designing several TCO models for various server-side technologies such as IBM WebSphere and Linux. You should check out the website if you would like more information on the product. It does very specific TCO analysis, very thorough.
Basically, there are several costs involved in getting to Linux Migration TCO. Most involve professional development and personnel costs involved with migrating your IT personnel to Linux, but there are also hardware considerations involved.
There's also a White Paper available on the CIOview, Inc. website titled "The Financial Impact of Migrating to Linux", which should be helpful.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to send an e-mail.
How about this: if you incorrectly build tables (and I've built some complicated tables), and miss the terminating table tag "/table", then Netscape completely crashes out with no warning (I don't know if this is still a problem - I worked with someone at netscape and believe they were going to release a patch.. but who knows?)
Slashdot Mirror
He is a friend of mine. I can assure you (for whatever that's worth), that everything in the article is 100% true and accurate.
Maybe you should do some research before you just mouth off about something you obviously have no clue about. Not only have several academic studies proven the value of high-frequency trading to liquidity and improvements in market structure (Smith, Brogaard), but the common misconception that it was HFT that caused the flash crash has been shown to be false. why don't you investigate what spreads were before HFT, and tell me why it's better for people to pay $0.05/share after decimilization, or 12.5 cents/share before it? Or maybe you can just google HFT, and copy and paste the first thing that you find. Oh wait, you already did that.
I didn't see anything in the note about Risk Assessment Values from isecom.org, which is the foremost methodology for determining risk based on factual evidence of an infrastructure, as well as the other elements of one's security presence (physical, social, etc.). SecurityNOW! from CIOview (www.cioview.com) integrates this idea into a powerful tool in which one can assess IT investments based expected loss, and measure ROI.
Of course, I'm biased being a volunteer at ISECOM, but I still think these are important to bring up in any Security Metrics conversation.
For those who don't have a good understanding of Space Elevators other than some Sci-Fi you may have read that was written 50 years ago: A space elevator consists of 5 primary components: 1. Base Station 2. Ribbon 3. Climber 4. Counterweight 5. Power system This contest is an attempt to trigger innovation in the area of power and climber, not in the ribbon, station or counter-weight. The ribbon would need to be a carbon nanotube-based composite that is a matter of microns thick and very wide. The width of the ribbon would change based on whether it is in Earth's atmosphere (very thin - less affected by wind and less of a danger) or outer space (very thick, to be able to recover from damage from debris). The ribbon would stretch from a base station to approximately 125,000 km to geosynchronous earth orbit, at which point there will be a counterweight - initially the spacecraft used to deploy the ribbon and eventually an orbital station. The climber drives up the ribbon with an electric engine, and will need to be powered wirelessly. Currently the predominate thinking is to use a laser to hit solar-panels on the climber that are tuned for the particular wavelength of light that the laser is emitting. Initial Space Elevators, built in about 10 years for about $10 B, will be able to carry 20 tons of material at a cost of ~$300/kg (contrast that with the next-gen shuttle - $100 Billion, with a capacity of 40 tons @ ~$10,000/kg), with subsequent elevators able to carry up to 200 tons at a cost of $100/kg.
I believe the only proper response to you is: shut up. Don't be such a putz, that was a funny joke (and my level of scientific literacy destroys your theorem anyway).
This was actually most likely the result of a multicast or "slow consumer" storm. In a multicast network environment, often desktops are overloaded by all of the filtering they must perform (multicast sends nearly everything to everybody). Sometimes some desktops will miss a packet and ask for a retransmission. Often, this involves retransmitting in multicast-form - that is to all of the consumers. If this happens too many times, you get a storm. No matter what the NYSE does (unless they buy our technology - email for info if you'd like), they will not be able to avoid this happening in the future. It is a condition of middleware systems that were not meant to handle the volumes of modern stock markets, rather than a simple glitch in the network infrastructure.
Check out cioview.com's software TCOnow! for Windows and Linux. The software takes into account every major factor in a TCO analysis to give you a side-by-side comparison. Feel free to send me an e-mail if you have any questions (dlauer AT cioview dot com), or would like to see a demonstration.
I worked at a company designing several TCO models for various server-side technologies such as IBM WebSphere and Linux. You should check out the website if you would like more information on the product. It does very specific TCO analysis, very thorough. Basically, there are several costs involved in getting to Linux Migration TCO. Most involve professional development and personnel costs involved with migrating your IT personnel to Linux, but there are also hardware considerations involved. There's also a White Paper available on the CIOview, Inc. website titled "The Financial Impact of Migrating to Linux", which should be helpful. If you have any specific questions, feel free to send an e-mail.
How about this: if you incorrectly build tables (and I've built some complicated tables), and miss the terminating table tag "/table", then Netscape completely crashes out with no warning (I don't know if this is still a problem - I worked with someone at netscape and believe they were going to release a patch.. but who knows?)