HFTers always harp on the liquidity thing. News flash, while liquidity is important, it's not the purpose of the market. Equal access is much more important.
And HFTers absolutely grab profits from everyone else making trades. On the average, HFT makes money. It doesn't make it by finding a customer or building a product, therefore it must come from other traders, Q.E.D.
It's like I'm in the supermarket reaching for an orange and some guy swoops in and buys all the oranges in the store and all the neighboring stores as well and then offers to sell me my orange for a penny more than the prices on shelf. "But," he cries helpfully, "I did you a favor because you can choose from three times as many oranges now!" I just wanted my damn orange for the listed price.
I've got that one, too, and it also is amazing. Precisely *because* it was early great care was taken in it's creation. By the mid 90s almost all CDs were crap. Not because of CDs; because of slapdash work.
Yeah, but back then lots of care was put into making a quality recording for CD because only audiophiles were buying them. Today the care is going into vinyl for the same reason.
Few doubt that a quality recording pressed to vinyl is going to be better than slapdash work pressed to CD. There is more to sound reproduction than the medium used to deliver it.
There is also no way to record to an analog medium without loss of information. The question is, which loss is greater? The answer is, the loss to vinyl is greater than the loss to CD.
Back when CDs were new technology, people were going to great lengths to try to make the most perfect recording possible. I have an early CD of 1812 overture recorded using actual cannons. It is amazing and exceeds anything possible with vinyl. Because back in 1984 only audiophiles were buying CDs, great care was taken to deliver a high quality product.
However, once the masses started buying CDs no care was taken any more and we started having the loudness wars which threw out the very thing that CDs offered: greater dynamic range (i.e. from very quite violin solo to actual 17th century cannon).
Today, the tables are turned. Audiophiles are buying vinyl and the masses are buying compressed streams. Therefore, great care is taken to deliver a high-quality vinyl product.
Few doubt that a quality recording pressed to vinyl is going to be better than slapdash work pressed to CD. There is more to sound reproduction than the medium used to deliver it.
When I was a kid and we would occasionally visit a rural church for whatever reason I always heard the farmers talking about how because of the government and big agribusiness there wasn't any money in farming anymore. Then they all got in their brand-new Cadillacs and drove home.
Our family would have *loved* to have a password for 60 days. We had to change our passwords every 30 seconds and every password had to be 80 characters long and contain Unicode characters that hadn't yet been assigned!
But that's the point of the original comment in this thread, isn't it. What makes 1-2-3-4-5 insecure is the fact that the companies storing the hashes can't be trusted to keep them safe but the user gets blamed for having an insecure password.
So you want the government to invest in a technology that will *both* save huge numbers of lives *and* massively increase convenience? That seems antithetical to what government does.
Slashdot Mirror
To put it simply, everyone should have equal access to the market.
HFTers always harp on the liquidity thing. News flash, while liquidity is important, it's not the purpose of the market. Equal access is much more important.
And HFTers absolutely grab profits from everyone else making trades. On the average, HFT makes money. It doesn't make it by finding a customer or building a product, therefore it must come from other traders, Q.E.D.
It's like I'm in the supermarket reaching for an orange and some guy swoops in and buys all the oranges in the store and all the neighboring stores as well and then offers to sell me my orange for a penny more than the prices on shelf. "But," he cries helpfully, "I did you a favor because you can choose from three times as many oranges now!" I just wanted my damn orange for the listed price.
I've got that one, too, and it also is amazing. Precisely *because* it was early great care was taken in it's creation. By the mid 90s almost all CDs were crap. Not because of CDs; because of slapdash work.
You have to expect, though, that in 30 years a bunch of hipsters will be on about how great mp3s were.
Yeah, but back then lots of care was put into making a quality recording for CD because only audiophiles were buying them. Today the care is going into vinyl for the same reason.
Tell you what, you look up the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and then we'll talk.
Few doubt that a quality recording pressed to vinyl is going to be better than slapdash work pressed to CD. There is more to sound reproduction than the medium used to deliver it.
It is? Where does it record the timbre of the particular reed that I am using in my Saxophone?
There is also no way to record to an analog medium without loss of information. The question is, which loss is greater? The answer is, the loss to vinyl is greater than the loss to CD.
Back when CDs were new technology, people were going to great lengths to try to make the most perfect recording possible. I have an early CD of 1812 overture recorded using actual cannons. It is amazing and exceeds anything possible with vinyl. Because back in 1984 only audiophiles were buying CDs, great care was taken to deliver a high quality product.
However, once the masses started buying CDs no care was taken any more and we started having the loudness wars which threw out the very thing that CDs offered: greater dynamic range (i.e. from very quite violin solo to actual 17th century cannon).
Today, the tables are turned. Audiophiles are buying vinyl and the masses are buying compressed streams. Therefore, great care is taken to deliver a high-quality vinyl product.
Few doubt that a quality recording pressed to vinyl is going to be better than slapdash work pressed to CD. There is more to sound reproduction than the medium used to deliver it.
But can you rig a machine for me?
Or electricity
When I was a kid and we would occasionally visit a rural church for whatever reason I always heard the farmers talking about how because of the government and big agribusiness there wasn't any money in farming anymore. Then they all got in their brand-new Cadillacs and drove home.
Plus all the stuff to do and see on screens starting around then. I used to run around outside because I was bored.
Less hypocrisy from the side that claims intellectual honesty.
One would stop it by not commenting on Slashdot. How hard is that?
Yes! Let's start adding to the autolog of collective nouns!
Lucky for us, it doesn't seem to much matter who is sitting in the oval office.
Our family would have *loved* to have a password for 60 days. We had to change our passwords every 30 seconds and every password had to be 80 characters long and contain Unicode characters that hadn't yet been assigned!
But that's the point of the original comment in this thread, isn't it. What makes 1-2-3-4-5 insecure is the fact that the companies storing the hashes can't be trusted to keep them safe but the user gets blamed for having an insecure password.
"The Americas" includes Mexico.
*Most* likely violent death is an automobile accident.
How many millionaires do you know that made their fortune by working 40+ hours a week and saving every penny? Probably none.
Read "The Millionaire Next Door". You just described most millionaires. And you know them; you just don't know that they are millionaires.
So you want the government to invest in a technology that will *both* save huge numbers of lives *and* massively increase convenience? That seems antithetical to what government does.
This is awesome. I have immediate use for this idea in SQL.
Kinda dumb doing all that work before looking at the license, don't you think?