I've seen this reported on Zero Hedge for months now. The purpose of spamming the market with order quotes is to slow down the competitor's computers, to give you a slight edge in monitoring the market. Basically, you flood the market with order quotes. The competitors' algorithms have to take these into account, while your algorithm can be designed to ignore them. This gives you a slight edge over the competitors in processing actual market data and making determinations.
You really think Congress is that farsighted? No, it will be the Congress of 2181 that grants the money to save us all. Hopefully by then companies like SpaceX will finally have moved us beyond '60s space travel technology.
Were it legal to sell one's own organs (which it should be), he would likely have already sold them, and given the profits to his loved ones - a win-win situation for all involved. Instead, we are stuck with waiting lists and high prices (due to lack of supply, due to ban on selling for profit).
For something that's free, people sure do get enraged when it changes in the slightest, or has bugs, or decides to try to profit from the information that people love to dump on it.
They are right within their context, and based on the knowledge that was used to determine them. To say that Newton's Laws are always wrong is to say that *all* laws that we have discovered - and ever will discover - are likewise flat-out wrong, for the very reasons I have already stated. Newton made observations of motion, and made conclusions based on those observations. His conclusions were right, based on what he observed. Later, we made more precise observations, and made new conclusions based on them. But Newton's conclusions were right, based on the observations.
On the contrary - all laws are true within their context. And that will be true of all laws discovered in the future. There will never be a law in the future which you could definitely say will "always be true", as that would require omniscience, which is impossible. So truth requires context, and all laws are true.
For the same reason, if I claim to be a soothsayer, and accurately predict specific global events far into the future, it would not mean that I am speaking the truth. There is no conceivable means by which I could have known that those events would have occurred. I simply guessed correct, but my statements were not true. Truth is the product of the recognition of reality - so with no possible means by which I could have recognized future events, I cannot speak truth about them.
Even your mathematical truth, e.g. Pythagoras' theorem, is only true in the context of Euclidean geometry.
They're civilians in a war zone. Why are they sticking around in a war zone? They should be a) getting the hell out, or b) assisting in taking down the insurgents to reclaim their home, at their own risk.
Your negligence in preparing for and handling this scenario, however, would be cause for intervention.
How am I negligent, but the customer who chose not to get a backup generator is not?
"Free Enterprise" does not mean "free from all responsibility".
The only responsibility individuals have toward eachother is to not initiate force. If my network were under attack, I would try to stop it, and appeal to the government for assistance, but I would never be considered the initiator of force, and so am not responsible for the results.
Wow. So "your" failure to secure your network is killing people (given the scenario above), and you would still refuse to hand over the password to people trying to stop the attack and therefore save lives??
I am not initiating force. The attacker is responsible for the lives put in jeopardy as a result of their actions. Were I a customer, relying on such a fragile network in the dead of winter, I would opt for some sort of back-up generator, to ensure my own safety.
If your stance is that extreme even in the face of an example that extreme, then you may have just changed my mind on this legislation. Clearly we need it.
Based on what rationale? Your emotional gauge of what is "extreme"?
I would have thought anyone out there, when faced with something beyond their capability, would ask for help if it was really important.
I would certainly ask for help. But it would be wrong for someone, even the police, to force it out of me.
And also, IANAL, but I think the statement about essential services is not correct. I believe there are legal avenues for essential services to be forced to be provided. (remember the Air Traffic Controller strike, Reagan ordered them back to work, and they had to comply)
The fact that there is legal precedence for an action is not an argument for whether that action should be legal.
If your company directly uses the government granted right of way that allows your people to drive through my cornfield twice a year to get a power pole, generally knocking down a 350 square foot patch of corn in the process, and has a government granted monopoly on providing a utility to my area, you don't get argue private property.
How could you read my quote and assume that I would be in favor of government-granted monopolies? Your whole argument is moot as I am equally opposed to such force-backed monopolies, for the exact same reason I am opposed to the entitlements you support - both violate individual rights.
If a man is bleeding to death outside a bandage store, I am perfectly entitled to get the bandages and save the mans life even if he cannot pay or the store is closed.
No, you are not. I would recommend calling an ambulance at that point. Are you really going to smash in a window and climb over broken glass, putting yourself at risk of being in the same situation as the other guy? If you are such a concerned citizen, why aren't you carrying around a first aid kit in your fanny pack?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market.
How does one go about "sucking profits"? What does that even mean? If you're going to advocate telling people how, with whom, and when they are allowed to buy or sell items with other willing individuals, you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur.
This explains why every few minutes, stock ticker sites like Yahoo Finance are producing new riveting headlines that leave the impression that the cause of every move in the stock market is fully understood.
How could this be used for cars, unless everyone drives around with their headlights off at night? Besides the headlights, the heat from the cars' engines would also produce a very bright result in IR, no?
Slashdot Mirror
No empirically-testable system of ethics? Then it's crap!
The dude just wants to finally make this a reality.
I've seen this reported on Zero Hedge for months now. The purpose of spamming the market with order quotes is to slow down the competitor's computers, to give you a slight edge in monitoring the market. Basically, you flood the market with order quotes. The competitors' algorithms have to take these into account, while your algorithm can be designed to ignore them. This gives you a slight edge over the competitors in processing actual market data and making determinations.
You really think Congress is that farsighted? No, it will be the Congress of 2181 that grants the money to save us all. Hopefully by then companies like SpaceX will finally have moved us beyond '60s space travel technology.
Were it legal to sell one's own organs (which it should be), he would likely have already sold them, and given the profits to his loved ones - a win-win situation for all involved. Instead, we are stuck with waiting lists and high prices (due to lack of supply, due to ban on selling for profit).
For something that's free, people sure do get enraged when it changes in the slightest, or has bugs, or decides to try to profit from the information that people love to dump on it.
I guess then 10^50 should be called Ameri-.
Newton's Laws, for instance, are flat-out wrong.
They are right within their context, and based on the knowledge that was used to determine them. To say that Newton's Laws are always wrong is to say that *all* laws that we have discovered - and ever will discover - are likewise flat-out wrong, for the very reasons I have already stated. Newton made observations of motion, and made conclusions based on those observations. His conclusions were right, based on what he observed. Later, we made more precise observations, and made new conclusions based on them. But Newton's conclusions were right, based on the observations.
On the contrary - all laws are true within their context. And that will be true of all laws discovered in the future. There will never be a law in the future which you could definitely say will "always be true", as that would require omniscience, which is impossible. So truth requires context, and all laws are true.
For the same reason, if I claim to be a soothsayer, and accurately predict specific global events far into the future, it would not mean that I am speaking the truth. There is no conceivable means by which I could have known that those events would have occurred. I simply guessed correct, but my statements were not true. Truth is the product of the recognition of reality - so with no possible means by which I could have recognized future events, I cannot speak truth about them.
Even your mathematical truth, e.g. Pythagoras' theorem, is only true in the context of Euclidean geometry.
ICANN HAZ PORN?
At least he's a socially inept moron with a stupid-sounding voice, so the cosmic joke is on him.
Only insofar as he considers social acceptance his ultimate value/goal. If he does not, then the joke is on you.
that company should be regulated to prevent that from happening
In other words, our future tax dollars should go toward propping up that company and financing its bad decisions...
All on the arbitrary claim that the company would cause a recession...
And certainly spending out futurity would not lead to an even greater recession...
They're civilians in a war zone. Why are they sticking around in a war zone? They should be a) getting the hell out, or b) assisting in taking down the insurgents to reclaim their home, at their own risk.
Ever hear of eminent domain?
Yes. It's an invalid concept as equally ungrounded in reality as "public property" or "square circle".
Your negligence in preparing for and handling this scenario, however, would be cause for intervention.
How am I negligent, but the customer who chose not to get a backup generator is not?
"Free Enterprise" does not mean "free from all responsibility".
The only responsibility individuals have toward eachother is to not initiate force. If my network were under attack, I would try to stop it, and appeal to the government for assistance, but I would never be considered the initiator of force, and so am not responsible for the results.
Wow. So "your" failure to secure your network is killing people (given the scenario above), and you would still refuse to hand over the password to people trying to stop the attack and therefore save lives??
I am not initiating force. The attacker is responsible for the lives put in jeopardy as a result of their actions. Were I a customer, relying on such a fragile network in the dead of winter, I would opt for some sort of back-up generator, to ensure my own safety.
If your stance is that extreme even in the face of an example that extreme, then you may have just changed my mind on this legislation. Clearly we need it.
Based on what rationale? Your emotional gauge of what is "extreme"?
I would have thought anyone out there, when faced with something beyond their capability, would ask for help if it was really important.
I would certainly ask for help. But it would be wrong for someone, even the police, to force it out of me.
And also, IANAL, but I think the statement about essential services is not correct. I believe there are legal avenues for essential services to be forced to be provided. (remember the Air Traffic Controller strike, Reagan ordered them back to work, and they had to comply)
The fact that there is legal precedence for an action is not an argument for whether that action should be legal.
If your company directly uses the government granted right of way that allows your people to drive through my cornfield twice a year to get a power pole, generally knocking down a 350 square foot patch of corn in the process, and has a government granted monopoly on providing a utility to my area, you don't get argue private property.
How could you read my quote and assume that I would be in favor of government-granted monopolies? Your whole argument is moot as I am equally opposed to such force-backed monopolies, for the exact same reason I am opposed to the entitlements you support - both violate individual rights.
If a man is bleeding to death outside a bandage store, I am perfectly entitled to get the bandages and save the mans life even if he cannot pay or the store is closed.
No, you are not. I would recommend calling an ambulance at that point. Are you really going to smash in a window and climb over broken glass, putting yourself at risk of being in the same situation as the other guy? If you are such a concerned citizen, why aren't you carrying around a first aid kit in your fanny pack?
In that equation, would you still not hand over your root password to safe lives? Just because it is "private property"?
Correct. The fact that you consider my services "essential" does not grant you the right to my services. I am not your slave.
Millisecond trading is exploiting the system
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market.
How does one go about "sucking profits"? What does that even mean? If you're going to advocate telling people how, with whom, and when they are allowed to buy or sell items with other willing individuals, you should at least have the common courtesy to clearly explain why such voluntary trades should not be permitted to occur.
But what motivates each trade?
This explains why every few minutes, stock ticker sites like Yahoo Finance are producing new riveting headlines that leave the impression that the cause of every move in the stock market is fully understood.
Unfortunately for the government, the Omega program is only in alpha release.
It looks like this has already been done, and better.
How could this be used for cars, unless everyone drives around with their headlights off at night? Besides the headlights, the heat from the cars' engines would also produce a very bright result in IR, no?