A Honda Civic cannot compete in every way with a Hummer.
And yet, a lot of people find it does well enough for the price.
I'm sure many would like a Bugatti Veyron too. But since the support costs are too high, they usually go with a less expensive car without such high required costs.
The traditional way of looking at it (going back over a century) is that it's illegal. You can be fined and you can go to prison (even if you are really wealthy (well at least in the 1980s, maybe not today).
I don't care what you do. Go out and don't pay your federal taxes because you believe the government doesn't have a legal right to collect income taxes.
We are out of $30 a barrel oil. Some other countries still have $10 a barrel oil.\
However, oil takes on the price of the most expensive barrel pumped and sold.
The U.S. has a ton of oil that would take about $90 a barrel to get out.
And other alternatives at $90 to $100 a barrel equivalent price.
Still, population is getting too high. Ocean fishing areas are out and out collapsing (not fishable-- doesn't mean lifeless- would recover completely in 20-30 years if fishing was banned in those areas). Same for grains.
But.. we can choose to exist at much leaner levels of existence. A tiny percentage at the top will live well while most live on food of low nutritional value that is a bit tasteless. There will be various problems (celiac disease, possibly autism, other nutritional issues) but the deer over breeding where we all die off quickly is probably 40-50 years away. At that point, one little war and billions will die.
But... the system is rigged so you can't. Many people try to get rich. Most get "owned" by the wealthy people who control copyrights, patents, distribution channels, exclusive rights to all the clubs and venues in town.
You are talking about the ideal of capitalism- we haven't had that for 40 years.
Firstly, So how is he more evil than a bulk user book dealer???
They sell to the same people he sells to.
Secondly, tho it's rare googling did find references to libraries throwing books away. They didn't have the staff to sell them. It was cheaper just to toss them.
The main limit I can see is not allowing these people to "call dibs" on lots of books.
Hmmm.
They could put a librarian over it the first hour who you have to request hands you a book. That way you can't claim an entire shelf of books and then sit down and scan them. They could also limit you to 5 purchases per day. And once you have five books, you can't get any more books off the shelf to scan.
The only problem I have there is wealth disparity is becoming so high that.5% of the population is starting to get *everything* (most of the wealth, most of the income, most of the best books- which sit unused on a shelf looking valuable), most of the best property (which sits unused 300 days a year).
The next 10% is pretty happy. But the bottom 90% is increasingly pissed at this "let them eat cake attitude". The wealthy better reign their greed in a bit and start sharing the wealth (literally) or things are going to turn ugly as they have repeatedly in the past.
Actually, he's probably preserving some of these books from destruction.
He looks over 30 books that would have sold for a dollar- and if they failed to be sold, they would be recycled.
If no one knew the "value" of those books, then the highly valuable rare text would sit unsold and then be destroyed.
Agree with the other tho- content should be separated. It would be awesome if he took these rare books, put the scanned content in a safe place til copyright ran out and then put them in the public domain. And sell the rare book to someone who really just wants the physical book (more than the contents).
What makes it illegal is that I am "overbidding" to manipulate the price.
Like coming up and saying, "I lost my ring and I'll pay a $500 reward for it, here is my number", then my accomplice finds the ring and sells it to the mark for $80.
The HFT places and cancels orders (in microseconds- only another computer could force execution).
The human places and cancels orders (in seconds?)
Was it this?
I buy 10,000 shares at $1. it executes. the price doesn't really move.
Then I place a limit order for 100 shares for $1.50 and of course it executes at a $1.50. Then I place a limit order for 100 shares at $2.00 and it executes.
on very low volume, I'm giving the illusion that this obscure stock is taking off. The ignorant computer catches this price change and starts buying. The person sells their 10,000 shares to the stupid computer program for $1.75 which thinks it is getting a bargain.
--- Okay- that's some kind of illegal behavior. It's been done to humans, I forget the name of it.
No what I'm saying is that in my area of the country, living rooms and viewing habits tend towards large rooms with over 10' from the television. 7' seems extremely close. I would feel uncomfortable (smothered) by a huge screen that close. The advertisements show a couch or pit group 10+ feet away from a centrally located screen about 2' off the ground, often with a coffee table in the middle. A very common setup is TV on one wall and the seating on the opposite wall.
Do you have naturally tiny rooms where you are, a custom viewing room, or some tiny corner of a larger room set aside for viewing.
I take it that you don't have a coffee table or it is pushed against the TV.
It's illegal if GS is doing it to. And it shouldn't net a 500 million dollar fine on 3 billion in profits. Executives should go to jail.
Frontrunning is also illegal and GS was doing that too.
basic problem- corporations are too big for governments to control.
solution- use taxes and punitive measures until the corporations are small enough that government can control them again. companies "too big to fail" should be broken up into chunks which can fail.
"Corporations" as a structure were created to benefit society not to benefit select individuals. (Just like copyright). The "corporations are people" and computers have lead to a situation where corporations are not benefiting society like they used to so the rules need to change.
Numerous countries around the world show us we could have better, happier lives (on every level). We have to change the rules to benefit everyone. I'm not against the rich per se. I'm against us reaching a point where 1% of the population has 100% of the wealth and everyone else lives in misery their entire lives.
I'm more of the 1950's sf author who said the future was a boot on the face of history stretching out for all time.
As the technology gets better, the elite can leverage it to control (sometimes violently) the masses. the only way to get a change would be for someone in the elite to back it (ala tea party).
The only way to get a movement that mattered going is with some kind of privacy.
It doesn't have to be bad, the top 1% could have 10, 20, even 50x and still leave a world of plenty for everyone else where people worked reasonable hours. Productivity is way up, but we still have to "work" 40 hour weeks. When we get productive enough, instead of getting lighter duties, they lay someone off and tell the rest to work 12 hours a day again and feel lucky they are not fired.
I have this coat, that has a $1000 tag on the sleeve.
but WAIT, don't leave, I'll put it on sale for $400!
It's well known that humans have anchor bias and it's used all the time.
BTW, the coat cost me $100 and I have 85 of them in the back that I need to move. I'll probably dump 35 of them in ink and cut them to ribbons in a few months.
But isn't this is what high frequency trading programs do?
They "probe" the actual price by sending and immediately canceling hundreds (thousands?) of orders at different price levels with no intention of executing those trades.
Slashdot Mirror
A Honda Civic cannot compete in every way with a Hummer.
And yet, a lot of people find it does well enough for the price.
I'm sure many would like a Bugatti Veyron too. But since the support costs are too high, they usually go with a less expensive car without such high required costs.
Oh, but i assure you, I'm right 110% of the time.
That's one way of looking at it.
The traditional way of looking at it (going back over a century) is that it's illegal. You can be fined and you can go to prison (even if you are really wealthy (well at least in the 1980s, maybe not today).
I don't care what you do. Go out and don't pay your federal taxes because you believe the government doesn't have a legal right to collect income taxes.
Feel free to post a last word. I'm moving on.
This is somewhat true.
We are out of $30 a barrel oil. Some other countries still have $10 a barrel oil.\
However, oil takes on the price of the most expensive barrel pumped and sold.
The U.S. has a ton of oil that would take about $90 a barrel to get out.
And other alternatives at $90 to $100 a barrel equivalent price.
Still, population is getting too high. Ocean fishing areas are out and out collapsing (not fishable-- doesn't mean lifeless- would recover completely in 20-30 years if fishing was banned in those areas).
Same for grains.
But.. we can choose to exist at much leaner levels of existence. A tiny percentage at the top will live well while most live on food of low nutritional value that is a bit tasteless. There will be various problems (celiac disease, possibly autism, other nutritional issues) but the deer over breeding where we all die off quickly is probably 40-50 years away. At that point, one little war and billions will die.
Hmm. Built houses for the homeless in 95 degree weather.. check. And not on vacation time either - I gave up $1800 income that week.
donated to the red cross... check
donated food to food banks, check.
worked in food banks boxing donated food check.
Next?
I'm in the 10% that's reasonably happy. No need.
But... the system is rigged so you can't. Many people try to get rich. Most get "owned" by the wealthy people who control copyrights, patents, distribution channels, exclusive rights to all the clubs and venues in town.
You are talking about the ideal of capitalism- we haven't had that for 40 years.
Hahah.
No, you are gone. When the finder calls you for the $500 reward, the number is a fake.
You don't buy the ring for $500.
You are out a $10 costume ring, you and your accomplice have $80 bucks.*
---
Translated to stock.
You limit buy 10,000 at $1, the stock sits flat. (buying the costume ring.)
Then you buy a small amounts bidding the price up to $5.00 ( I'll pay $500 for the ring)
The bot thinks the stock is moving up. You offer to sell it 10,200 shares for prices from $5.25 down to at $1.60 a share ( a huge bargain!)
Now the bot has 10,200 shares for $20,000 to $30,000.
Your net profit is $9,000 to $19,000
The bot is stuck with the worthless stock (probably have trouble finding a buyer for it at $1 per share).
---
* see movie Zombieland for a depiction of this scam
Firstly, So how is he more evil than a bulk user book dealer???
They sell to the same people he sells to.
Secondly, tho it's rare googling did find references to libraries throwing books away. They didn't have the staff to sell them. It was cheaper just to toss them.
The main limit I can see is not allowing these people to "call dibs" on lots of books.
Hmmm.
They could put a librarian over it the first hour who you have to request hands you a book. That way you can't claim an entire shelf of books and then sit down and scan them.
They could also limit you to 5 purchases per day. And once you have five books, you can't get any more books off the shelf to scan.
Not really tho. It's a pittance that probably doesn't pay for 1 book a month.
The only problem I have there is wealth disparity is becoming so high that .5% of the population is starting to get *everything* (most of the wealth, most of the income, most of the best books- which sit unused on a shelf looking valuable), most of the best property (which sits unused 300 days a year).
The next 10% is pretty happy. But the bottom 90% is increasingly pissed at this "let them eat cake attitude". The wealthy better reign their greed in a bit and start sharing the wealth (literally) or things are going to turn ugly as they have repeatedly in the past.
As people lose hope, they turn mean.
Actually, he's probably preserving some of these books from destruction.
He looks over 30 books that would have sold for a dollar- and if they failed to be sold, they would be recycled.
If no one knew the "value" of those books, then the highly valuable rare text would sit unsold and then be destroyed.
Agree with the other tho- content should be separated. It would be awesome if he took these rare books, put the scanned content in a safe place til copyright ran out and then put them in the public domain.
And sell the rare book to someone who really just wants the physical book (more than the contents).
What makes it illegal is that I am "overbidding" to manipulate the price.
Like coming up and saying, "I lost my ring and I'll pay a $500 reward for it, here is my number", then my accomplice finds the ring and sells it to the mark for $80.
It's a con game, not legitimate commerce.
Because the new drug was supposed to be BETTER! New IMPROVED!
And patented.
And then it turned out that the new drug was no better than metformin.
A lot of modern medicines are not better than older medicines.
They had a big push to replace metformin (1950's super cheap) diabetes drug with something new--- it was the new big thing until it wasn't.
I understand intent is a factor in law.
However, the actions of both are the same.
The HFT places and cancels orders (in microseconds- only another computer could force execution).
The human places and cancels orders (in seconds?)
Was it this?
I buy 10,000 shares at $1. it executes. the price doesn't really move.
Then I place a limit order for 100 shares for $1.50 and of course it executes at a $1.50.
Then I place a limit order for 100 shares at $2.00 and it executes.
on very low volume, I'm giving the illusion that this obscure stock is taking off. The ignorant computer catches this price change and starts buying. The person sells their 10,000 shares to the stupid computer program for $1.75 which thinks it is getting a bargain.
---
Okay- that's some kind of illegal behavior. It's been done to humans, I forget the name of it.
That sounds entirely legal to me.
I buy 10,000 shares.
Then I buy 100 shares, 100 shares, 100 shares to move the price up further.
I don't see how that is illegal.
It would be hard to distinguish from legitimately adding to a position.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
Let's put a human in the loop instead of a computer-- people would say, "well stupid, you shouldn't have bought the 10,000 shares".
No what I'm saying is that in my area of the country, living rooms and viewing habits tend towards large rooms with over 10' from the television. 7' seems extremely close. I would feel uncomfortable (smothered) by a huge screen that close. The advertisements show a couch or pit group 10+ feet away from a centrally located screen about 2' off the ground, often with a coffee table in the middle. A very common setup is TV on one wall and the seating on the opposite wall.
Do you have naturally tiny rooms where you are, a custom viewing room, or some tiny corner of a larger room set aside for viewing.
I take it that you don't have a coffee table or it is pushed against the TV.
It's illegal if GS is doing it to. And it shouldn't net a 500 million dollar fine on 3 billion in profits. Executives should go to jail.
Frontrunning is also illegal and GS was doing that too.
basic problem- corporations are too big for governments to control.
solution- use taxes and punitive measures until the corporations are small enough that government can control them again. companies "too big to fail" should be broken up into chunks which can fail.
"Corporations" as a structure were created to benefit society not to benefit select individuals. (Just like copyright). The "corporations are people" and computers have lead to a situation where corporations are not benefiting society like they used to so the rules need to change.
Numerous countries around the world show us we could have better, happier lives (on every level). We have to change the rules to benefit everyone. I'm not against the rich per se. I'm against us reaching a point where 1% of the population has 100% of the wealth and everyone else lives in misery their entire lives.
I'm more of the 1950's sf author who said the future was a boot on the face of history stretching out for all time.
As the technology gets better, the elite can leverage it to control (sometimes violently) the masses. the only way to get a change would be for someone in the elite to back it (ala tea party).
The only way to get a movement that mattered going is with some kind of privacy.
It doesn't have to be bad, the top 1% could have 10, 20, even 50x and still leave a world of plenty for everyone else where people worked reasonable hours. Productivity is way up, but we still have to "work" 40 hour weeks. When we get productive enough, instead of getting lighter duties, they lay someone off and tell the rest to work 12 hours a day again and feel lucky they are not fired.
Its valid except...
High quality entertainment has completely saturated me. There is now more high quality entertainment than I can consume.
Which means high quality entertainment is now a commodity to me. And I suspect I'm not the only one.
that's rather clever if you spend some time reflecting on it.
Buying and selling from yourself to manipulate the price is actually illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation
I have this coat, that has a $1000 tag on the sleeve.
but WAIT, don't leave, I'll put it on sale for $400!
It's well known that humans have anchor bias and it's used all the time.
BTW, the coat cost me $100 and I have 85 of them in the back that I need to move. I'll probably dump 35 of them in ink and cut them to ribbons in a few months.
But isn't this is what high frequency trading programs do?
They "probe" the actual price by sending and immediately canceling hundreds (thousands?) of orders at different price levels with no intention of executing those trades.