Two things apply in that case: 1 someone with standing would have to take action. This is normally the copyright holder. 2 the included code would have to be either licensed or removed. There is no obligation for rising tide to provide their source code.
Licensing could, of course, be done under a different license than the GPL, as the copyright holder may unilaterally license their code at will.
That stuff was copied from the article. 1015 actually had the "15" in superscript, so it represented 10^15. The comment about "background" probably refers to natural background radiation rather than natural background Caesium-137, although it's written badly enough that it isn't clear.
Really? You think there is still an argument for imperial units? What temperature does salt water freeze at? The UK isn't exactly the arbiter of sanity either. Do you realize that UK pints (etc) are different from US pints? The imperial system would have more merit if it were consistent, but even the the metric system is fsr superior. As an example, I work with times all the way from nanoseconds to many seconds, and nothing could beat the simplicity of powers of ten. Comparing 450 nanos with.51 micros is a breeze, but minutes, hours and days are a nightmare. What's 0.21 minutes?
But you have no grounds on which to compare them. You're making a claim, but you haven't been doing the studies and figuring out the cost/benefit. YOU have been listening to the propaganda paid for by big oil.
1. What??! If you paid the costs for a seat at the exchange and the infrastructure and the colocation, etc. Then you could get your market order into the exchange in under a millisecond. It would still be matched at the best price by the exchange and you'd almost certainly be matched with a natket maker. That market maker would be an HFT company. If you go thru a broker you'd still get the best price, but pay a small fee. Exactly what benefit do you think you get from all this infrastructure? 2. It's less money per share than the old specialist. 3. How do you think would take the other side of your trades if there were no HFT?
1. This happens in other markets too. It's not realty skimming, as the HFT firm is not a middleman for the orders - orders go to the exchanges, and the exchanges match them. If the HfT firm weren't there the exchange would be matching you to a specialist. Then you're prices would be really great... But you probably wouldn't get that sarcasm. FACT When the specialists ran the show the bid ask spreads were 25 c or 50 c. So they'd "skim" more of your trades. 2. Demand raises the COST of HFT, making it harder for HFT to make money. It does NOT raise the prices. The most you could say is that it widens spreads, but to make that argument you'd have to ignore the FACT that spreads in liquid stocks is 1c, and is therefore at its minimum. BTW customers are guaranteed best prices, so when market makers compete, they compete with each othet, which reduces spreads, reducing the cost to the customer. 3. You simply made an unsupported claim, which contradicts available impartial studies.
When a trader wants to dump, as you put it, a market maker takes the other side. Otherwise there would be no match. This has been true since the start of NYSE around 1929 IIRC. So you have it backwards.
Trouble is, I don't know, and I haven't seen any studies that support or refute the claim.
In the absence of evidence, isn't it prudent to follow Hippocrates, and do no harm?
If this were intended as a practical experiment, there should be some method of collecting data built in, like how much CO2 is sequestered over time, but that doesn't appear to be the case, and some effects won't be measurable for many years.
I support studying this approach on a relatively small scale so long as the experiment has some chance of definitive answers - and perhaps this was small enough. At the same time, we should be trying to curb the bad behaviors which are known, without a shadow of a doubt, to cause damage.
The words, printed by newspapers, preceded, and caused violence. More words (blaming a particular group for the violence and particular urging by a bishop) resulted in more violence.
I'm sure I will never have any difficulty finding new examples...
Perhaps you should look for yourself.
BTW, I still wholeheartedly believe in freedom of speech.
How were the books of the Bible chosen vs how particular mathematical models are chosen? The books of the Bible were, roughly, chosen by committee and aren't subject to change. Mathematical models are chosen by testing and retesting and refinement. They are all subject to change based on new facts and findings.
Therefore the claim of scientific Canon is bogus. If authority decided which theories to accept, instead of merit, then science wouldn't work, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I don't think I discounted anything, but allow me to make a case now. It's pretty clear that I pointed out that writings were chosen to collect together. The implication is that the choices were made by men. It's really very clear that these men were politically motivated.
Also, there isn't a central message, nor even a coherent one. It's widely open to interpretation, and different sects do, in fact, ascribe to incompatible interpretations. Few of the stories in the Bible stand up to any standard of argument at all.
If one were to choose a religion solely by the strength of the arguments in it's holy book, one would never choose Christianity.
One might make the same argument about the strength of it's moral message. The vast amount of atrocity approved in biblical stories and the shear vindictiveness of the god described therein is truely astonishing.
There were many conflicting writings to choose from at the time the Bible was formed. They could have made the Bible say many different things. That is says what it does is by choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things apply in that case:
1 someone with standing would have to take action. This is normally the copyright holder.
2 the included code would have to be either licensed or removed. There is no obligation for rising tide to provide their source code.
Licensing could, of course, be done under a different license than the GPL, as the copyright holder may unilaterally license their code at will.
That stuff was copied from the article.
1015 actually had the "15" in superscript, so it represented 10^15.
The comment about "background" probably refers to natural background radiation rather than natural background Caesium-137, although it's written badly enough that it isn't clear.
Nope - it was merely copied and pasted without fixing it properly.
Really? You think there is still an argument for imperial units? .51 micros is a breeze, but minutes, hours and days are a nightmare. What's 0.21 minutes?
What temperature does salt water freeze at?
The UK isn't exactly the arbiter of sanity either. Do you realize that UK pints (etc) are different from US pints?
The imperial system would have more merit if it were consistent, but even the the metric system is fsr superior.
As an example, I work with times all the way from nanoseconds to many seconds, and nothing could beat the simplicity of powers of ten. Comparing 450 nanos with
But you have no grounds on which to compare them. You're making a claim, but you haven't been doing the studies and figuring out the cost/benefit.
YOU have been listening to the propaganda paid for by big oil.
...and results in a lot more CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
You may not think it right, but many of us agree with the sentiment.
Especially when you throw in the strife and loss of life that lead us to freedom.
+1
Why is there no "dislike"?
1. What??! If you paid the costs for a seat at the exchange and the infrastructure and the colocation, etc. Then you could get your market order into the exchange in under a millisecond. It would still be matched at the best price by the exchange and you'd almost certainly be matched with a natket maker. That market maker would be an HFT company.
If you go thru a broker you'd still get the best price, but pay a small fee.
Exactly what benefit do you think you get from all this infrastructure?
2. It's less money per share than the old specialist.
3. How do you think would take the other side of your trades if there were no HFT?
What facts? You didn't state any.
1. This happens in other markets too. It's not realty skimming, as the HFT firm is not a middleman for the orders - orders go to the exchanges, and the exchanges match them. If the HfT firm weren't there the exchange would be matching you to a specialist. Then you're prices would be really great... But you probably wouldn't get that sarcasm. FACT When the specialists ran the show the bid ask spreads were 25 c or 50 c. So they'd "skim" more of your trades.
2. Demand raises the COST of HFT, making it harder for HFT to make money. It does NOT raise the prices. The most you could say is that it widens spreads, but to make that argument you'd have to ignore the FACT that spreads in liquid stocks is 1c, and is therefore at its minimum. BTW customers are guaranteed best prices, so when market makers compete, they compete with each othet, which reduces spreads, reducing the cost to the customer.
3. You simply made an unsupported claim, which contradicts available impartial studies.
When a trader wants to dump, as you put it, a market maker takes the other side. Otherwise there would be no match. This has been true since the start of NYSE around 1929 IIRC.
So you have it backwards.
Why am I responding to an anonymous coward?
+1 funny
Thanks for the info
I agree - it probably does pale in comparison.
Trouble is, I don't know, and I haven't seen any studies that support or refute the claim.
In the absence of evidence, isn't it prudent to follow Hippocrates, and do no harm?
If this were intended as a practical experiment, there should be some method of collecting data built in, like how much CO2 is sequestered over time, but that doesn't appear to be the case, and some effects won't be measurable for many years.
I support studying this approach on a relatively small scale so long as the experiment has some chance of definitive answers - and perhaps this was small enough. At the same time, we should be trying to curb the bad behaviors which are known, without a shadow of a doubt, to cause damage.
Seriously bad car analogy, dude.
Coffee damaged keyboard over here.
Because that was the question, of course.
No answer is, perhaps, the most revealing response.
Er... I actually pointed out the timeline. The speech came first.
For an alternate refutation, see here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishinev_pogrom#section_1
The words, printed by newspapers, preceded, and caused violence.
More words (blaming a particular group for the violence and particular urging by a bishop) resulted in more violence.
I'm sure I will never have any difficulty finding new examples...
Perhaps you should look for yourself.
BTW, I still wholeheartedly believe in freedom of speech.
Wrong.
http://www.comppsychjournal.com/article/S0010-440X(01)66889-5/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4S-4T5S4KJ-3/2/b0bdb571fc6e91f190ced29fe12dd7b7
http://www.annfammed.org/content/8/3/206.short
There are plenty more. Educate yourself before making blanket statements.
I've never seen such a string of straw men.
How were the books of the Bible chosen vs how particular mathematical models are chosen?
The books of the Bible were, roughly, chosen by committee and aren't subject to change.
Mathematical models are chosen by testing and retesting and refinement. They are all subject to change based on new facts and findings.
Therefore the claim of scientific Canon is bogus. If authority decided which theories to accept, instead of merit, then science wouldn't work, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I don't think I discounted anything, but allow me to make a case now. It's pretty clear that I pointed out that writings were chosen to collect together. The implication is that the choices were made by men. It's really very clear that these men were politically motivated.
Also, there isn't a central message, nor even a coherent one. It's widely open to interpretation, and different sects do, in fact, ascribe to incompatible interpretations. Few of the stories in the Bible stand up to any standard of argument at all.
If one were to choose a religion solely by the strength of the arguments in it's holy book, one would never choose Christianity.
One might make the same argument about the strength of it's moral message. The vast amount of atrocity approved in biblical stories and the shear vindictiveness of the god described therein is truely astonishing.
No one is going to suggest a particular religion?
Perhaps because none is a defensible choice.
It's generous to ascribe peace as the goal.
In history the high priests have been adept at wielding political power over the credulous.
Suppose I've never encountered religion before, and I discovered God and desire to become religious.
What religion should I choose, and why?
There were many conflicting writings to choose from at the time the Bible was formed. They could have made the Bible say many different things. That is says what it does is by choice.
All of those things can be done in a walled garden.