That sounds like BS. The fructose and glucose found in hfcs are chemically identical to those found in other natural sources. Fructose isn't a problem because we can't metabolize it, it's a problem because most of it turns into fat instead of glucose.
Check again... fructose is metablozed differently than other sugars. It results in very little glucose (low on the GI) but very high triglycerides. Most of it ends up as fat, and a lot deposits on the liver.
If they had evidence they would have arrested him. As it was they held him for nearly the full allowed time without charges (which basically never happens). And they took all his stuff. And, according to Glenn Greenwald, they didn't ask any questions about terrorism. This was intimidation, pure and simple.
The US has seen many protests. Many people have moved there, even from the UK and other European countries, for freedom. Look at Salmon Rushdie. No, this is relatively new and your attitude doesn't help. We need large number of people showing their indignation, not sitting at home saying "it was probably always like this"
My 10 year old girls aren't what anyone would call hard core gamers. But they both love playing. I want to know why it bothers you that others like it. You have a problem.
I have 3 kids that play with many friends. They play survival about half the time. Sometimes they like to build. Hell, I've built stuff and my kids added on to it. Not everyone is like you.
Yeah... the medics will bring equipment and medicines to you more safely, and likely quicker. I'd probably take a couple of aspirin too... but that's not a good idea for everyone.
Taxes have funded our advances for decades. Where have you been? Thing is, businesses wouldn't fund much of the research that gets done... and for good reason: most of it doesn't result in profitable technologies and products. We wouldn't be #1 if we didn't fund this research. Personally, I would reduce defense and increase research spending by a factor of ten.
Nope. This'll just mean the republicans will get in next time with a landslide. People who vote think the system works. Voting reinforces that. All of this will be blamed on Obama... and the next government will make some visible but ineffective changes. After running on "ending the spying" or some such. They won't abolish these programs or punish the illegal spying... they'll add more "oversight".
You could implement these strategies in the sense that all you need is money (not that much) and surprisingly little knowledge. Anyone can buy an exchange colocated server. The protocols are dead simple. The you need a strategy. A legal one, preferably.:)
TL;DR version: Firstly, neither of those articles contradicts what I said. If the exchange makes a match, it sends the fills to both parties immediately. I've measured these times on numerous venues. There isn't any possible way a trading algorithm can refuse a trade (on equity venues). Secondly, the rules are the same for everyone. If you wanted to do the same as the companies mentioned in those articles, you could. I wouldn't recommend it, and it's illegal - but if you wanted to you could.
So, nice try.
Full version. Second link first. Ms Lopez doesn't know what she's talking about. The NBBO is merely the aggregation of the best bid and best ask across all the venues. Because of different books, and in-flight conditions and regulations (the NBBO cannot lock or cross itself, for example) and so on, the NBBO often is wider than necessary and may actually cross exchange venues books. When that happens, the exchange isn't supposed to publish the quotes - they become hidden, and cannot trade inside the NBBO. This is actually stupid and inefficient, because allowing those orders to trade would benefit the consumer - the very people these regulations are supposed to protect. But I digress. The analysis from Nanex is highly deficient. It claims that most of these quotes affected the NBBO. But since the NBBO is actually shown on the same graph they prove the opposite: only a handful of quotes affected the NBBO. Strangely enough - each time they do, THEY IMPROVE the price available to consumers. That's necessarily true if you place an order inside the NBBO. If it was a worse price it wouldn't, by definition, be inside the NBBO. As to whether this contradicts my claims - it doesn't: the quotes were cancelled before they traded and anyone could do this.
First link. Several behaviors are mentioned here. Spoofing. Placing an quote inside the BBO, in the hope that some other trader will join your price, or even improve upon it. Then aggressing the other trader's quote. The only reason this is illegal is because the spoofer is entering a quote he doesn't intend to trade - it's not bona fide. This is actually a fine line, because there isn't any way the trader can prevent it from trading - so they have to take the risk. To reduce the risk they probably send a cancel shortly after sending the order so it doesn't rest for long - but it's still exposed. What's funny here is that this is a (illegal) strategy to try to get *another algorithm* to make a mistake and to profit from it - it's algorithms cannibalizing each other! No person would make the same mistake - or even see the quote, since it's shown for such a short period. Layering is very similar, but it involves building up quotes on one side. Many algos see this as momentum and predict a price change. Note however that the only thing done was place orders on one side of the book. If an aggressor sends an order that crosses these they could sweep those quotes leaving the algo with a large losing position. Usually that won't happen. When some other algo detects the momentum and adjust its quotes the first one jumps in and hits the new liquidity at a profit.
In both of these cases sending the "non-bona fide" quotes in leaves the trader exposed. These quotes can trade. In addition, anyone could implement these (illegal) strategies. The companies involved had no special privileges. None of these strategies involved being able to avoid being matched at the exchange.
The rules ARE the same for everyone. When you send an order to the exchange, there is no tag on the order that says "I can break the most basic rules of matching" The exchange has no incentive to provide that kind of function, but every incentive not to. Lastly, it's impossible to do surreptitiously: the trade occurs and the fills are both sent to the trading parties immediately. There isn't physically enough time for either party to send back a message to refuse the trade without the other party knowing.
The NSA's analysts are constrained by rules, not physically, as far as I can tell. They have all the data, *in case*. They promise not to look at it, if they believe you to be an American citizen talking to an american citizen. Sure. No one will ever abuse that. And I'm totally sure it's legal.
(That was a lot of sarcasm, BTW, for people who have trouble with such!)
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like BS.
The fructose and glucose found in hfcs are chemically identical to those found in other natural sources.
Fructose isn't a problem because we can't metabolize it, it's a problem because most of it turns into fat instead of glucose.
Fructose is bad, whether you get it from hfcs, sucrose or directly from fruit juice.
Check again... fructose is metablozed differently than other sugars. It results in very little glucose (low on the GI) but very high triglycerides. Most of it ends up as fat, and a lot deposits on the liver.
No, he's right: fructose and sucrose are toxic over the long term.
You really should check out "sugar: the bitter truth".
There are many studies that either completed recently or are on going which are confirming these findings.
If they had evidence they would have arrested him.
As it was they held him for nearly the full allowed time without charges (which basically never happens).
And they took all his stuff.
And, according to Glenn Greenwald, they didn't ask any questions about terrorism.
This was intimidation, pure and simple.
That's not clear. It depends on the housing market. In a declining market you're often better off renting.
Communist.
He visited with friends in the US and was reportedly much more comfortable, e.g. Hitch.
Perhaps it wasn't the best example.
The US has seen many protests. Many people have moved there, even from the UK and other European countries, for freedom. Look at Salmon Rushdie.
No, this is relatively new and your attitude doesn't help.
We need large number of people showing their indignation, not sitting at home saying "it was probably always like this"
*I* worship Notch??
You are so far off the mark it's not funny.
Exactly what about my post is evidence of that?
I only played after they did.
I've totalled maybe an hour on it. I ask *them* how to achieve stuff.
I honestly don't know what you think needs fixing.
Yeah - in another post I said they play on survival and creative, depending how they feel, who they're playing with, etc.
You are totally obsessed with this, and you're wrong.
Are US secrets covered by the UKs official secrets act?
My 10 year old girls aren't what anyone would call hard core gamers. But they both love playing.
I want to know why it bothers you that others like it.
You have a problem.
I have 3 kids that play with many friends.
They play survival about half the time.
Sometimes they like to build.
Hell, I've built stuff and my kids added on to it.
Not everyone is like you.
None of that contradicts my point
Yeah... the medics will bring equipment and medicines to you more safely, and likely quicker.
I'd probably take a couple of aspirin too... but that's not a good idea for everyone.
Taxes have funded our advances for decades.
Where have you been?
Thing is, businesses wouldn't fund much of the research that gets done... and for good reason: most of it doesn't result in profitable technologies and products.
We wouldn't be #1 if we didn't fund this research.
Personally, I would reduce defense and increase research spending by a factor of ten.
Nope. .. they'll add more "oversight".
This'll just mean the republicans will get in next time with a landslide.
People who vote think the system works. Voting reinforces that.
All of this will be blamed on Obama... and the next government will make some visible but ineffective changes. After running on "ending the spying" or some such.
They won't abolish these programs or punish the illegal spying.
You could implement these strategies in the sense that all you need is money (not that much) and surprisingly little knowledge. Anyone can buy an exchange colocated server. The protocols are dead simple. :)
The you need a strategy. A legal one, preferably.
TL;DR version:
Firstly, neither of those articles contradicts what I said. If the exchange makes a match, it sends the fills to both parties immediately. I've measured these times on numerous venues. There isn't any possible way a trading algorithm can refuse a trade (on equity venues).
Secondly, the rules are the same for everyone. If you wanted to do the same as the companies mentioned in those articles, you could. I wouldn't recommend it, and it's illegal - but if you wanted to you could.
So, nice try.
Full version. Second link first. Ms Lopez doesn't know what she's talking about. The NBBO is merely the aggregation of the best bid and best ask across all the venues. Because of different books, and in-flight conditions and regulations (the NBBO cannot lock or cross itself, for example) and so on, the NBBO often is wider than necessary and may actually cross exchange venues books. When that happens, the exchange isn't supposed to publish the quotes - they become hidden, and cannot trade inside the NBBO. This is actually stupid and inefficient, because allowing those orders to trade would benefit the consumer - the very people these regulations are supposed to protect. But I digress. The analysis from Nanex is highly deficient. It claims that most of these quotes affected the NBBO. But since the NBBO is actually shown on the same graph they prove the opposite: only a handful of quotes affected the NBBO. Strangely enough - each time they do, THEY IMPROVE the price available to consumers. That's necessarily true if you place an order inside the NBBO. If it was a worse price it wouldn't, by definition, be inside the NBBO. As to whether this contradicts my claims - it doesn't: the quotes were cancelled before they traded and anyone could do this.
First link. Several behaviors are mentioned here.
Spoofing. Placing an quote inside the BBO, in the hope that some other trader will join your price, or even improve upon it. Then aggressing the other trader's quote. The only reason this is illegal is because the spoofer is entering a quote he doesn't intend to trade - it's not bona fide. This is actually a fine line, because there isn't any way the trader can prevent it from trading - so they have to take the risk. To reduce the risk they probably send a cancel shortly after sending the order so it doesn't rest for long - but it's still exposed. What's funny here is that this is a (illegal) strategy to try to get *another algorithm* to make a mistake and to profit from it - it's algorithms cannibalizing each other! No person would make the same mistake - or even see the quote, since it's shown for such a short period.
Layering is very similar, but it involves building up quotes on one side. Many algos see this as momentum and predict a price change. Note however that the only thing done was place orders on one side of the book. If an aggressor sends an order that crosses these they could sweep those quotes leaving the algo with a large losing position. Usually that won't happen. When some other algo detects the momentum and adjust its quotes the first one jumps in and hits the new liquidity at a profit.
In both of these cases sending the "non-bona fide" quotes in leaves the trader exposed. These quotes can trade. In addition, anyone could implement these (illegal) strategies. The companies involved had no special privileges. None of these strategies involved being able to avoid being matched at the exchange.
The rules ARE the same for everyone. When you send an order to the exchange, there is no tag on the order that says "I can break the most basic rules of matching"
The exchange has no incentive to provide that kind of function, but every incentive not to.
Lastly, it's impossible to do surreptitiously: the trade occurs and the fills are both sent to the trading parties immediately. There isn't physically enough time for either party to send back a message to refuse the trade without the other party knowing.
LOL
This is slashdot - I didn't follow the link.
Sorry.
The NSA's analysts are constrained by rules, not physically, as far as I can tell.
They have all the data, *in case*. They promise not to look at it, if they believe you to be an American citizen talking to an american citizen.
Sure. No one will ever abuse that.
And I'm totally sure it's legal.
(That was a lot of sarcasm, BTW, for people who have trouble with such!)
They waged a demonization campaign. Big fucking surprise.
Many of us said they would. They did with Assange. They did with Snowden.
Trouble is... people buy into it.
Wait - are you trying to suggest Fox News is NOT a propaganda outlet?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525