You don't know what an ad hominem argument is, you don't know what the difference between "diagnosis" and "prognosis" are, and you clearly have issues.
Me: 1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?) 2) Capable of constructing a coherent argument. 3) Able to use english words in a way that is properly associated with their meaning.
APK: 1) Paranoid delusions. 2) Only able to construct rambling, Incoherent arguments. 3) OFF TOPIC TROLL.
I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend.
If a college degree is what gives you your mangled interpretations of "ad hominem," "prognosis," and other standard terms, I'm glad I'm not a graduate of whatever backwater troll factory you call your alma mater.
I do, in fact, have a college degree. You're wrong on all counts, but you are providing a remarkable demonstration of ad hominem attacks on me, and also, an effective case study in pissing into the wind. I'll let you know when I write you up in JAMA, the specifics of your case are fascinating.
Prognosis is a term to describe a prediction of the "likely outcome of an illness." Diagnosis is a determination of what your illness is.
What I offered was a speculative diagnosis, based on my observations of your behavior here. My prognosis is that you will die alone, unloved, probably of liver failure because you'll turn to alcohol to fill that deep void in your life that Slashdot and your Hosts file can't fill.
APK, you seem intent on viewing every response of mine as a threat. Is it because you're a paranoid schizophrenic? Seek help.
We all know that you've got a hosts file and you're not afraid to use it!
But I'll do you a favor - my ip is 127.0.0.1 - please block me with your hosts file. Also, you probably want to block out a system named "localhost," that's sort of my thing, I use that identifier.
You provided a link to the definition of ad hominem, which surprisingly, you appear incapable of comprehending.
I quoted the relevant definition of exactly what it was (not just a link). I win, you lose.
And why do you insist on asking if I'm making threats? I told you I wasn't, because if I was, you'd know it. Since you claim to not know whether or not I am, the answer, by process of deduction, is that I have not made any threats.
Really, APK. Elementary logic. You should read a book sometime.
APK! You followed me here too! That's AWESOME. Can you add a comment to your Hosts file in my honor?
Something like, "# I wish I was as cool as Americano @ Slashdot. He's interesting, informative, witty, and insightful. Thinking about him makes me want to choke myself, because it makes me realize what a pathetic excuse for a human being I am." I think that'd be pretty awesome.
Well, since it's fake AND artificial, I'm sure your point is completely valid.
If all HFT algos were doing was passing the same set of shares back and forth, nobody would be making any money at it. But I'm sure you already knew that. They're buying shares that investors want to sell, and selling shares that investors want to buy. They make money off it... and if they weren't there offering to buy & sell those shares, the price would probably be different, or at least certainly more volatile, when the investors wanted to buy or sell a position.
The "Flash Crash" wasn't caused by HFTs, though I know that's a popular meme which allows us to keep being angry at all those "fat cats" in their "business suits" on "Wall Street". It was triggered by a large mutual fund company deciding to sell an abnormally large number of E-mini contracts, which basically exhausted the pool of buyers for that instrument. This caused the prices to decline, and while it was *exacerbated* by algo trading shedding futures and real shares into a market where most buyers were already exhausted, it was not "caused" by the HFTs. The conditions would have existed for that sharp drop regardless of whether or not a computer was doing the trading.
So, once again: How does adding latency to every trade do ANYTHING to solve this problem? We've had large, very long-lasting point swings long before computers and HFT algorithms were ever in existence. Given that everybody loves to point to the Flash Crash as "proof of the evil of HFTs," I'd suggest that if that singular example is all you can cite, then you're really not looking to "make the market more fair," you're simply looking to "keep somebody else from having something." If you had money invested before that event, and you didn't participate in the stupid short-term, short-sighted panic and sell everything at the bottom of the flash crash, you lost nothing, and your investments have grown in value since then.
The "$100M of revenue on record DAYS" that you're complaining would have been simply wasted, lost to friction in the market, if you prevent anybody from trying to capture it. Should FedEx introduce random latency and delays into their systems in order to make bike couriers more competitive? The bike courier can't compete with FedEx's scale & reach. Maybe in the interests of fairness, we should force FedEx to use only bikes as well? After all, if one company can take advantage of its greater size & scale to make money in a given industry, surely that source of profit is illegitimate and should be completely outlawed!
1) Learn what constitutes an ad hominem argument. The definition is very clear, and you haven't been subjected to one. 2) Attacking you? Hardly. I've simply called you some names and poked fun. If I were attacking you, you'd know it.
APK, I'll explain this to you one last time in small words with few syllables: for me to be conducting an "ad hominem" attack, I'd have to be saying something negative about you, *and then* suggesting that that negative trait is why your points are wrong and invalid. Name-calling and getting you all lathered with frustration like this is what we call "just a bit of fun," and has no bearing on whether or not your points are true, false, or completely disconnected from all reality.
You're the one who went off topic with your diatribe about SQL Server versions and "windows being better."
He "polarizes" neckbeards and contrarians who are rooting to see the top dog fail.
I doubt you could find too many people outside of your insular little community of slashdotters who could be arsed to have much of an opinion of "Steve Jobs, the guy." They may say, "I love the stuff that company puts out," or "I don't see the big deal about this iPhone whatsit," but there's not a lot of "polarization" when it comes to Steve. The strong negatives seem localized to FOSS zealots (speaking of religion...) and contrarian people who are upset because Apple is popular, and so it's just another thing that "all the sheeple" fall for.
So, let's assume you are in a key engineering role at your publicly traded company. Does the press and the public then have a "right" to any private data about you they wish to get their hands on? After all, you're a critical person at the company, doesn't the public have a _right to know_ whether or not you have the clap? If you have to take an extended absence, it could cause a tremendous disruption in the company's ability to do business!
If you are buying or selling apple stock based on "how Steve is feeling today," then you're an idiot. What everybody knows: Steve's out of the picture. Might be for a few months, might be for 2 years, might be forever. It doesn't matter WHY he's out, and he hasn't announced any plans to return. So, you base your judgement on the people the company STILL HAS working for it. If you think they have the ability to execute a strong performance over the next few years, then you're happy that their business is sound even without Steve. If you think that Tim Cook and the rest of the crew won't be able to execute, you curb future investments and maybe even move to divest yourself of your current holdings.
This insistence that "Jobs == Apple" is just a thin excuse for ghoulish voyeurism. If you think that the value of Apple is solely linked to Jobs' brand of charisma, then I doubt you own any Apple stock anyway, and you're not entitled to any information.
I guess I don't understand what problem you think this will solve, at all. "Treating them as simultaneous" doesn't change the fact that they're received in an order, and processed in a particular order. All you're going to do is invent a new mouse trap for the mice to engineer around - either they'll stuff the queue with more orders to try and increase the chances that some of their trades will be randomly selected to go first, or they'll figure out the delay and algorithm you're using to process orders, and game that.
A "regular human player" who's trying to time trades in terms of seconds is not going to win. Computers are faster, and the amount of money required to build the trading systems and eke a profit out of arbitrage using these systems is not "stealing money" from anybody. They are making money in fractions of a penny per share per trade, and have to trade thousands of shares just to make a couple bucks. It's a game for institutional investors with deep pockets and a lot of patience. Normal humans are far better served buying and holding long-term investments based on the fundamentals of the stocks they're buying. The computers are trying to eke a profit out of normal intraday and cross-exchange fluctuations in prices. At the same time, they're providing additional liquidity to the market, and acting as a damping mechanism on that price volatility.
Automated trading did not cause the meltdown in 2008. Automated trading did not cause the meltdown in 2001. What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve by introducing latency (and thus pricing & trade inefficiency) into the financial market, and what mechanism do you specifically expect that your solution will use to solve that problem?
APK, why do you speak of yourself in the third person in these thinly veiled attempts at sock puppetry?
Noting that you're a self-aggrandizing bore is simply an observation. It is not an ad hominem attack, because frankly, I'm not arguing with any of your points, I'm simply pointing out that you love to repeat yourself!
Slashdot Mirror
"We"? What, you got a mouse in your pocket now?
You don't know what an ad hominem argument is, you don't know what the difference between "diagnosis" and "prognosis" are, and you clearly have issues.
Cry more troll. Cry more.
I have no need to prove myself to you, you troll.
APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL.
Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)
2) Capable of constructing a coherent argument.
3) Able to use english words in a way that is properly associated with their meaning.
APK:
1) Paranoid delusions.
2) Only able to construct rambling, Incoherent arguments.
3) OFF TOPIC TROLL.
I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend.
If a college degree is what gives you your mangled interpretations of "ad hominem," "prognosis," and other standard terms, I'm glad I'm not a graduate of whatever backwater troll factory you call your alma mater.
I do, in fact, have a college degree. You're wrong on all counts, but you are providing a remarkable demonstration of ad hominem attacks on me, and also, an effective case study in pissing into the wind. I'll let you know when I write you up in JAMA, the specifics of your case are fascinating.
APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL!
Prognosis is a term to describe a prediction of the "likely outcome of an illness." Diagnosis is a determination of what your illness is.
What I offered was a speculative diagnosis, based on my observations of your behavior here. My prognosis is that you will die alone, unloved, probably of liver failure because you'll turn to alcohol to fill that deep void in your life that Slashdot and your Hosts file can't fill.
See the difference?
APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL!
Don't need a PhD in psychiatry to diagnose you. Just good old-fashioned common sense, girlfriend.
APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL!
APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL!
APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL!
In fairness, a gallon of gasoline and a match can get you to prison, or the afterlife, even without a vehicle to put it in. That could be pretty far.
Again with the paranoid delusions.
You must live in such a scary world.
APK, you seem intent on viewing every response of mine as a threat. Is it because you're a paranoid schizophrenic? Seek help.
We all know that you've got a hosts file and you're not afraid to use it!
But I'll do you a favor - my ip is 127.0.0.1 - please block me with your hosts file. Also, you probably want to block out a system named "localhost," that's sort of my thing, I use that identifier.
APK, stop with the sock puppets. It does nothing to bolster your arguments, just makes you look like a foolish child, desperate for attention.
(And as far as hiding... who, exactly, is hiding behind an "Anonymous Coward" label here? Yeah... I thought so.)
You provided a link to the definition of ad hominem, which surprisingly, you appear incapable of comprehending.
I quoted the relevant definition of exactly what it was (not just a link). I win, you lose.
And why do you insist on asking if I'm making threats? I told you I wasn't, because if I was, you'd know it. Since you claim to not know whether or not I am, the answer, by process of deduction, is that I have not made any threats.
Really, APK. Elementary logic. You should read a book sometime.
APK! You followed me here too! That's AWESOME. Can you add a comment to your Hosts file in my honor?
Something like, "# I wish I was as cool as Americano @ Slashdot. He's interesting, informative, witty, and insightful. Thinking about him makes me want to choke myself, because it makes me realize what a pathetic excuse for a human being I am." I think that'd be pretty awesome.
Aww, is APK stalking me? That's his quote style!
What's the matter, upset that I'm not offering to blow you for your hosts file?
Well, since it's fake AND artificial, I'm sure your point is completely valid.
If all HFT algos were doing was passing the same set of shares back and forth, nobody would be making any money at it. But I'm sure you already knew that. They're buying shares that investors want to sell, and selling shares that investors want to buy. They make money off it... and if they weren't there offering to buy & sell those shares, the price would probably be different, or at least certainly more volatile, when the investors wanted to buy or sell a position.
The "Flash Crash" wasn't caused by HFTs, though I know that's a popular meme which allows us to keep being angry at all those "fat cats" in their "business suits" on "Wall Street". It was triggered by a large mutual fund company deciding to sell an abnormally large number of E-mini contracts, which basically exhausted the pool of buyers for that instrument. This caused the prices to decline, and while it was *exacerbated* by algo trading shedding futures and real shares into a market where most buyers were already exhausted, it was not "caused" by the HFTs. The conditions would have existed for that sharp drop regardless of whether or not a computer was doing the trading.
So, once again: How does adding latency to every trade do ANYTHING to solve this problem? We've had large, very long-lasting point swings long before computers and HFT algorithms were ever in existence. Given that everybody loves to point to the Flash Crash as "proof of the evil of HFTs," I'd suggest that if that singular example is all you can cite, then you're really not looking to "make the market more fair," you're simply looking to "keep somebody else from having something." If you had money invested before that event, and you didn't participate in the stupid short-term, short-sighted panic and sell everything at the bottom of the flash crash, you lost nothing, and your investments have grown in value since then.
The "$100M of revenue on record DAYS" that you're complaining would have been simply wasted, lost to friction in the market, if you prevent anybody from trying to capture it. Should FedEx introduce random latency and delays into their systems in order to make bike couriers more competitive? The bike courier can't compete with FedEx's scale & reach. Maybe in the interests of fairness, we should force FedEx to use only bikes as well? After all, if one company can take advantage of its greater size & scale to make money in a given industry, surely that source of profit is illegitimate and should be completely outlawed!
I see you're able to quote the definition I gave you - good for you! Next, perhaps you can work on understanding what all those big words mean.
If I were attacking you, you'd know it. And not even your precious hosts file would help you!
As always, I'm gobsmacked by the openness!
Yawn.
You're boring me, APK.
1) Learn what constitutes an ad hominem argument. The definition is very clear, and you haven't been subjected to one.
2) Attacking you? Hardly. I've simply called you some names and poked fun. If I were attacking you, you'd know it.
APK, I'll explain this to you one last time in small words with few syllables: for me to be conducting an "ad hominem" attack, I'd have to be saying something negative about you, *and then* suggesting that that negative trait is why your points are wrong and invalid. Name-calling and getting you all lathered with frustration like this is what we call "just a bit of fun," and has no bearing on whether or not your points are true, false, or completely disconnected from all reality.
You're the one who went off topic with your diatribe about SQL Server versions and "windows being better."
Fail harder though, seriously.
He "polarizes" neckbeards and contrarians who are rooting to see the top dog fail.
I doubt you could find too many people outside of your insular little community of slashdotters who could be arsed to have much of an opinion of "Steve Jobs, the guy." They may say, "I love the stuff that company puts out," or "I don't see the big deal about this iPhone whatsit," but there's not a lot of "polarization" when it comes to Steve. The strong negatives seem localized to FOSS zealots (speaking of religion...) and contrarian people who are upset because Apple is popular, and so it's just another thing that "all the sheeple" fall for.
So, let's assume you are in a key engineering role at your publicly traded company. Does the press and the public then have a "right" to any private data about you they wish to get their hands on? After all, you're a critical person at the company, doesn't the public have a _right to know_ whether or not you have the clap? If you have to take an extended absence, it could cause a tremendous disruption in the company's ability to do business!
If you are buying or selling apple stock based on "how Steve is feeling today," then you're an idiot. What everybody knows: Steve's out of the picture. Might be for a few months, might be for 2 years, might be forever. It doesn't matter WHY he's out, and he hasn't announced any plans to return. So, you base your judgement on the people the company STILL HAS working for it. If you think they have the ability to execute a strong performance over the next few years, then you're happy that their business is sound even without Steve. If you think that Tim Cook and the rest of the crew won't be able to execute, you curb future investments and maybe even move to divest yourself of your current holdings.
This insistence that "Jobs == Apple" is just a thin excuse for ghoulish voyeurism. If you think that the value of Apple is solely linked to Jobs' brand of charisma, then I doubt you own any Apple stock anyway, and you're not entitled to any information.
I guess I don't understand what problem you think this will solve, at all. "Treating them as simultaneous" doesn't change the fact that they're received in an order, and processed in a particular order. All you're going to do is invent a new mouse trap for the mice to engineer around - either they'll stuff the queue with more orders to try and increase the chances that some of their trades will be randomly selected to go first, or they'll figure out the delay and algorithm you're using to process orders, and game that.
A "regular human player" who's trying to time trades in terms of seconds is not going to win. Computers are faster, and the amount of money required to build the trading systems and eke a profit out of arbitrage using these systems is not "stealing money" from anybody. They are making money in fractions of a penny per share per trade, and have to trade thousands of shares just to make a couple bucks. It's a game for institutional investors with deep pockets and a lot of patience. Normal humans are far better served buying and holding long-term investments based on the fundamentals of the stocks they're buying. The computers are trying to eke a profit out of normal intraday and cross-exchange fluctuations in prices. At the same time, they're providing additional liquidity to the market, and acting as a damping mechanism on that price volatility.
Automated trading did not cause the meltdown in 2008. Automated trading did not cause the meltdown in 2001. What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve by introducing latency (and thus pricing & trade inefficiency) into the financial market, and what mechanism do you specifically expect that your solution will use to solve that problem?
APK, why do you speak of yourself in the third person in these thinly veiled attempts at sock puppetry?
Noting that you're a self-aggrandizing bore is simply an observation. It is not an ad hominem attack, because frankly, I'm not arguing with any of your points, I'm simply pointing out that you love to repeat yourself!
Y U MAD, BRAH?