Interesting debate, I'll have to finish reading it at some point.
After reading the opening statements, it seems to me that the pro-HFT guy, Jim Overdahl, is confusing the use of computer automation to reduce transaction costs (which benefits the whole market) with HFT firms that act only as middle men (which benefits only the HFT firms). I didn't realize people could get caught up on such a simple point, but perhaps this is the only way someone could think that HFT is actually a Good Thing.
Of course computer automation lowers transaction costs, and of course that's a good thing. Adding a minimum hold time, or taxing very short term holds wouldn't eliminate that benefit, though. It would only eliminate the middle men.
No, Word is a layout editor, where you cannot get away from the paper concepts of "pages" and "margins". It's about the worst program there is for entering plain text.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you can easily change the view to Draft, Web Layout (free of pages and margins), Outline, etc. in Word. It's certainly overkill for entering plain text, but I wouldn't say its the worst program there is for it. MS Paint would take that cake.
I agree. A government mandated standard for a consumer products like this is probably not the best idea. However, I do think it would be beneficial if Apple were required to license the technology for a fair price. This could provide the benefit of a superior (optional) standard, while still providing an incentive to innovate (though admittedly less of an incentive).
It's a shame you posted anonymously, because this is one of the clearest posts on the article. You are absolutely correct that the republican controlled house is operating fully within the extent of the law. Nonetheless, the republicans are still using ethically and morally questionable tactics to get what they want. They are no better than the Democrats who are unwilling to play ball.
HFT actually takes volatility out of the markets... most such strategies make money from volatility.
Most HFT makes money by simply being a middle man. Day trading and the remainder of HFT increases volatility by producing positive feedback loops between the prices of various market valuations. They then profit from the increased volatility by getting between the actual investors.
You don't actually know how HFT makes money - that's part of the reason you assume it's bad.
Middle men can be useful. In this case market making is the closes HFT strategy to "middle man". Market making has been around a lot longer than HFT (perhaps going back to 1871 and the NYSE specialist). So here you're not even arguing against HFT.
Unfortunately (for your argument) I can easily demonstrate that market making is good and that HFT has made it better:
1. People don't have to pay the spread (unlike taxes). If buying you can join the bid, or if selling you can join the sell. So IF they trade with the market maker it's because they *choose* to and must see benefit.
2. People trade with market makers because they get the best execution. Fastest and within 1c of the best price (for liquid stocks). Joining the bid or ask doesn't guarantee you a match. This can be risky, since the price can move before you get execution - and it's not always in your favor. Indeed, if your buying it's because you think the price will rise - if you don't get execution quickly, and the price does rise, you've lost some of your earnings.
3. Market makers have the best prices. This is guaranteed because exchanges can only match at the best price. If they weren't at the best bid or ask they wouldn't get trades. No trades means no profit. Note this is best prices *across all exchanges*. See NBBO
4. Before HFT, market makers kept the spreads at 10c or 25c. HFT has (thru simple competition - the specialists had almost no competition) significantly improved this - by 10 to 25 times! Your broker charges more!
You're getting lost in details and forgetting basic laws of conservation. Where does all the money that HFTs make come from? It comes from investors. Yes, market makers are basically the same as HFTs, but operating at a slower rate. Because they operate at a slower rate, it's possible to avoid using them and trade directly with other investors, thereby eliminating the middle man. This is not feasible with HFT.
Stock prices are affected by many many things, and these things are indeed changing multiple times per second. Interest rates, currencies futures options... even things like changes in liquidity and volatility have an affect on prices. Other stocks... commodities.
All of the examples you just named as "changing multiple times per second" do so because of the existence of day trading and HFT. Really, it's just the markets valuation of these things that change this rapidly.
Nonsense. My example about currencies changing is one clear example of how 1 stock can be affected externally. But there are literally thousands of things in hundreds of markets that affect individual stocks. Just because you could control how quickly a price could be affected (thru regulations like the one you suggested) doesn't mean that the *value* is unaffected. If you *do* implement such regulations, you necessarily make the markets less efficient. Less efficient means globally worse. You can't prevent the value of something from changing. And the markets tend to work around regulations that harm efficiency - either deliberately or not.
I agree that there can be a very large number of actual influences on the actual value of a stock However, even if there are 10,000 influences with a mean time between significant changes of 1 week (10,000 minutes), a minimum holding time of 1 min would still be reasonable and not affect actual
You completely missed the main points: 1. Bob shouldn't be penalized if Andy isn't.
Again, it's ultimately an acceptable drawback of the scheme. People can easily adapt by spreading their purchases over time.
2. Due to the increased risk, the cost to investing is higher. This *harms* the issuing company you are supposedly trying to help.
The increased risk raises the cost of investing relative to a market without day traders and HFTs, but that is not the market we currently have. Overall, there will be a net benefit.
You say there is a positive effect to a holding time - that it eliminates short term holding. But that's predicated on your *assumption* that eliminating short term trading is a positive effect.
It was not just an assumption, it was a supported statement. I'm not going to derive it for you, but I will try to explain it: day trading and HFT tend to accelerate short-term market changes because they base their investment decisions solely on said changes. If the price is falling, they sell, which accelerates the fall. If the price is rising, the buy, which accelerates the rise. Actual investors base their decisions on projections and long-term market changes. Said actual investors actually determine if a company is intrinsically worth investing in. Day traders and HFT do not.
You also say that some traders are a tax on "actual" investors. This isn't even clearly defined. What's the difference between "actual investors" and "short term traders"?
See above.
You already agreed that the 24 hour term you suggested for holding times is arbitrary.
This "tax" you talk about is one market participant earning money that another wouldn't.
No, it's day traders and HFTs earning money that actual investors would have. Where do you think the money that day traders and HFTs make comes from? It's not out of thin air.
Why do you care? I suggest it's only because it's not you.
Is it so hard to believe that I would rather an efficiently functioning system over a system in which it is easy to get rich quick by being a middle man? If I really wanted to be a day trader or HFT I could be very successful at it. But I don't.
The real effect here is that added risk increases the cost of trading, and therefore the cost of investing, and this slows growth. Slowed growth is bad for everyone.
Again, it only increases the cost of investing relative to a system without day traders or HFTs, which is not the system that we have. Overall, it would provide a net benefit. It would not slow economic growth.
HFT actually takes volatility out of the markets... most such strategies make money from volatility.
Most HFT makes money by simply being a middle man. Day trading and the remainder of HFT increases volatility by producing positive feedback loops between the prices of various market valuations. They then profit from the increased volatility by getting between the actual investors.
Stock prices are affected by many many things, and these things are indeed changing multiple times per second. Interest rates, currencies futures options... even things like changes in liquidity and volatility have an affect on prices. Other stocks... commodities.
All of the examples you just named as "changing multiple times per second" do so because of the existence of day trading and HFT. Really, it's just the markets valuation of these things that change this rapidly.
It's easy to see some of these... e.g. the price of Kraft Foods is affected by the supply of milk and pork belly futures. Since those things directly affect the profitability of the company. Other things are harder to trace out... there may be many steps involved. Practically speaking, everything of value can affect the price of other things of value.
Supply of milk - a real example. Futures are again the market's valuation of something, but supply of milk is actually something real. So, how often is data released on the supply of milk? How much do the estimates change in a day? What about in a week, or a month? Sure, in any given day there could be a significant change in estimates, but how often do such large changes occur? What is the mean time between significant changes? Much longer than the mean time between HFT transactions - orders of magnitude longer.
So yeah, the value of things change all the time. As for your underlying premise, that stocks are somehow "meant" to be held on to, it's totally false.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of misunderstanding me, rather than attempting to produce a straw-man. I did not say that stocks are "meant to be held on to". I said that the purpose of the stock market is to allow fractional investment in companies, and to provide capital for the companies deemed worthy of investment.
You already admitted that the term was arbitrary. Further, there is no benefit.
The benefit is the elimination of the effective tax and volatility introduced by day trading and HFT.
Forcing a third party to hold on to a falling stock is pointless: 1 selling doesn't affect the company 2 to sell there must be a willing buyer.
I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of the above sentence. Could you rephrase it?
Worse, it slows the market,
Which there is nothing inherently wrong with.
and increases risk.
Which is an acceptable drawback.
Increased risk increases the cost of buying and selling and investing. Such artificial inefficiencies harm the market overall.
But not as much as day trading and HFT.
Your trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist with a rule that would be only harmful.
I'm trying to eliminate the effective tax introduced by day trading and HFT. The cure has a slight disadvantage of increasing risk, but overall it would be a dramatic improvement.
If a slight hit to the Euro completely reverses Bob's investment decision, then perhaps it was not a good investment. This is no different than any investment - you account for the possible risks and possible rewards and make your decision.
Yes, a holding period does add risk by reducing liquidity, but like I said earlier, the purpose of the stock market is not to provide highly liquid investment opportunities. The purpose of the stock market is to allow fractional investment in a company, and to provide companies with investment capital. If the company has close competitors, there will obviously be a risk associated with investing in said company.
And again, there is a positive effect to a holding time - it eliminates short-term traders who effectively act as a tax on the actual investors. The billions of dollars that day trading and HFT firms make each year would go to the actual investors.
Regardless of whether or not you agree how the profit is spent (you can always become active in the legislative process), Austin Energy is still a successful government-run entity.
Yes, 24 hours is arbitrary. I think the actual time should be a reasonable fraction of the mean time between significant market changes. And by market changes, I don't mean stock market changes - I mean actual market changes, like new products being offered, or prices being changed (not speculative prices, but real prices). The actual value of a company does not change as rapidly as the stock market valuation of said company changes. If you are not confident enough in an investment to hold it for 24 hours, you should not be making the investment in the first place.
The stock market was created to make fractional investment in corporations possible, providing otherwise unattainable capital to corporations. Day trading and HFT tax the long-term investors in said system by increasing volatility.
Okay, let me re-qualify my point. I shouldn't have implied there are never legitimate reasons for wanting to get rid of stock the same day you purchased it. What I should have said is that stocks were created for long-term investment, and that day trading and HFT are perversions of this system which effectively tax long-term investors. By implementing a minimum hold time, you could eliminate these perversions at the cost of marginally higher risk to actual investors. Since long-term investors should be basing their decisions on more than market movements, this marginal risk is acceptable.
Of course, this is hardly clearer than my original statement; it is certainly more accurate, though.
I do like the idea of splitting revokes and reissues into two separate events. It's not foolproof, but this would give time for humans to get involved.
Thank you for the lengthy explanation. I do think I understand better, now, the argument for HFT. However, your argument for HFT seems to be based solely on the idea that it reduces margins between sellers and buyers, in effect my keeping transaction costs low.
My problem with your argument is that you assume small margins between sellers and buyers is a good thing. Good for day traders and HFTs, maybe, but good for long term investors, I'm not so sure. In fact, I think one could make a solid argument that large transaction costs are preferable for minimizing market volatility. Yes, large transaction costs would also reduce liquidity, but who ever said stocks should be highly liquid? If you want a liquid asset, stay in cash.
Ultimately stocks were created to allow companies to raise long term capital, and for long-term investors to take partial stake in said company. Day trading and HFT are perversions of a system originally developed for long term investment. The current situation of rampant day trading and high-frequency trading taxes the long term investors by introducing high market volatility. My disgust over why these activities were not banned 30 years ago remains.
Are you one of the extreme libertarians that think all road systems should be privatized, and we should have 3 highways to everywhere with competing tolls (which would inevitably be higher than the tax cost of building one highway)? Because if you aren't, I don't see how you think the corollary for internet access is preferable.
I live in Austin, where we have municipal run electric utility, Austin Energy, which is one of the cheapest in Texas. In addition, the profits (which are over $100 million a year) go to funding other city services and projects. There are certainly wasteful government-run organisations in the world, but not all government-run organisations are wasteful. Please take your faith-based and ideology-based opinions elsewhere.
Reminds me of "Winter is coming". OT, I know, but I think the unpredictability of winter is probably the most interesting thing about the Game of Thrones series.
Finally, someone who isn't completely bashing this idea. I think these look awesome. I loved the CoD MW franchise on PS3, and several FPSs on prior consoles, but KB&M will always beat thumbsticks for FPSs. I could actually see these rivaling KBM. I agree with the guy who said these won't be as good as thumbsticks for racing games, but you can't win them all.
Valve really is doing some revolutionary things for gaming - far more so than the big 3.
There's also the issue of how to update your public key in the web of trust, if your private key gets compromised. Any mechanism you implement for doing this could be hijacked by a third party in order to change your public key to theirs, thereby nullifying the point of having multiple separate CAs.
Real men certify identity the old way: a single certificate encrypted by hand. If there's no chance for a (digital) life-ending catastrophe, you're not doing it right.
Why only 15 seconds? Why not 24 hours? What reason, other than gaming the system, could there ever be to hold a stock for less than 24 hours? I don't understand why this wasn't made illegal 30 years ago... Well, I do - the people making the laws are the people profiting from them - but the reason is not a good one.
Ahh. I misunderstood the claim. They're using an oscillating field and detector array to measure the local conductivity in the near field - thereby making my complaint based on diffraction theory irrelevant.
Agreed. That strong of a field seems unlikely to exist at all times. He may have based his estimate on the field strength prior to a lightning strike, which is on the order of a megavolt (10^6 V). Over a distance of 10 km (10^4 m), the approximate distance from ground to clouds, that works out to ~100 V/m. However, such large fields are not always present.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting debate, I'll have to finish reading it at some point.
After reading the opening statements, it seems to me that the pro-HFT guy, Jim Overdahl, is confusing the use of computer automation to reduce transaction costs (which benefits the whole market) with HFT firms that act only as middle men (which benefits only the HFT firms). I didn't realize people could get caught up on such a simple point, but perhaps this is the only way someone could think that HFT is actually a Good Thing.
Of course computer automation lowers transaction costs, and of course that's a good thing. Adding a minimum hold time, or taxing very short term holds wouldn't eliminate that benefit, though. It would only eliminate the middle men.
No, Word is a layout editor, where you cannot get away from the paper concepts of "pages" and "margins". It's about the worst program there is for entering plain text.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you can easily change the view to Draft, Web Layout (free of pages and margins), Outline, etc. in Word. It's certainly overkill for entering plain text, but I wouldn't say its the worst program there is for it. MS Paint would take that cake.
I agree. A government mandated standard for a consumer products like this is probably not the best idea. However, I do think it would be beneficial if Apple were required to license the technology for a fair price. This could provide the benefit of a superior (optional) standard, while still providing an incentive to innovate (though admittedly less of an incentive).
You should read up on game theory. It might change your perspective. Particularly Nash equilibrium.
It's a shame you posted anonymously, because this is one of the clearest posts on the article. You are absolutely correct that the republican controlled house is operating fully within the extent of the law. Nonetheless, the republicans are still using ethically and morally questionable tactics to get what they want. They are no better than the Democrats who are unwilling to play ball.
HFT actually takes volatility out of the markets... most such strategies make money from volatility.
Most HFT makes money by simply being a middle man. Day trading and the remainder of HFT increases volatility by producing positive feedback loops between the prices of various market valuations. They then profit from the increased volatility by getting between the actual investors.
You don't actually know how HFT makes money - that's part of the reason you assume it's bad.
Middle men can be useful. In this case market making is the closes HFT strategy to "middle man". Market making has been around a lot longer than HFT (perhaps going back to 1871 and the NYSE specialist). So here you're not even arguing against HFT.
Unfortunately (for your argument) I can easily demonstrate that market making is good and that HFT has made it better:
1. People don't have to pay the spread (unlike taxes). If buying you can join the bid, or if selling you can join the sell. So IF they trade with the market maker it's because they *choose* to and must see benefit.
2. People trade with market makers because they get the best execution. Fastest and within 1c of the best price (for liquid stocks). Joining the bid or ask doesn't guarantee you a match. This can be risky, since the price can move before you get execution - and it's not always in your favor. Indeed, if your buying it's because you think the price will rise - if you don't get execution quickly, and the price does rise, you've lost some of your earnings.
3. Market makers have the best prices. This is guaranteed because exchanges can only match at the best price. If they weren't at the best bid or ask they wouldn't get trades. No trades means no profit. Note this is best prices *across all exchanges*. See NBBO
4. Before HFT, market makers kept the spreads at 10c or 25c. HFT has (thru simple competition - the specialists had almost no competition) significantly improved this - by 10 to 25 times! Your broker charges more!
You're getting lost in details and forgetting basic laws of conservation. Where does all the money that HFTs make come from? It comes from investors. Yes, market makers are basically the same as HFTs, but operating at a slower rate. Because they operate at a slower rate, it's possible to avoid using them and trade directly with other investors, thereby eliminating the middle man. This is not feasible with HFT.
Stock prices are affected by many many things, and these things are indeed changing multiple times per second. Interest rates, currencies futures options. .. even things like changes in liquidity and volatility have an affect on prices. Other stocks... commodities.
All of the examples you just named as "changing multiple times per second" do so because of the existence of day trading and HFT. Really, it's just the markets valuation of these things that change this rapidly.
Nonsense. My example about currencies changing is one clear example of how 1 stock can be affected externally. But there are literally thousands of things in hundreds of markets that affect individual stocks. Just because you could control how quickly a price could be affected (thru regulations like the one you suggested) doesn't mean that the *value* is unaffected. If you *do* implement such regulations, you necessarily make the markets less efficient. Less efficient means globally worse. You can't prevent the value of something from changing. And the markets tend to work around regulations that harm efficiency - either deliberately or not.
I agree that there can be a very large number of actual influences on the actual value of a stock However, even if there are 10,000 influences with a mean time between significant changes of 1 week (10,000 minutes), a minimum holding time of 1 min would still be reasonable and not affect actual
You completely missed the main points:
1. Bob shouldn't be penalized if Andy isn't.
Again, it's ultimately an acceptable drawback of the scheme. People can easily adapt by spreading their purchases over time.
2. Due to the increased risk, the cost to investing is higher. This *harms* the issuing company you are supposedly trying to help.
The increased risk raises the cost of investing relative to a market without day traders and HFTs, but that is not the market we currently have. Overall, there will be a net benefit.
You say there is a positive effect to a holding time - that it eliminates short term holding. But that's predicated on your *assumption* that eliminating short term trading is a positive effect.
It was not just an assumption, it was a supported statement. I'm not going to derive it for you, but I will try to explain it: day trading and HFT tend to accelerate short-term market changes because they base their investment decisions solely on said changes. If the price is falling, they sell, which accelerates the fall. If the price is rising, the buy, which accelerates the rise. Actual investors base their decisions on projections and long-term market changes. Said actual investors actually determine if a company is intrinsically worth investing in. Day traders and HFT do not.
You also say that some traders are a tax on "actual" investors. This isn't even clearly defined. What's the difference between "actual investors" and "short term traders"?
See above.
You already agreed that the 24 hour term you suggested for holding times is arbitrary.
This "tax" you talk about is one market participant earning money that another wouldn't.
No, it's day traders and HFTs earning money that actual investors would have. Where do you think the money that day traders and HFTs make comes from? It's not out of thin air.
Why do you care? I suggest it's only because it's not you.
Is it so hard to believe that I would rather an efficiently functioning system over a system in which it is easy to get rich quick by being a middle man? If I really wanted to be a day trader or HFT I could be very successful at it. But I don't.
The real effect here is that added risk increases the cost of trading, and therefore the cost of investing, and this slows growth. Slowed growth is bad for everyone.
Again, it only increases the cost of investing relative to a system without day traders or HFTs, which is not the system that we have. Overall, it would provide a net benefit. It would not slow economic growth.
HFT actually takes volatility out of the markets... most such strategies make money from volatility.
Most HFT makes money by simply being a middle man. Day trading and the remainder of HFT increases volatility by producing positive feedback loops between the prices of various market valuations. They then profit from the increased volatility by getting between the actual investors.
Stock prices are affected by many many things, and these things are indeed changing multiple times per second. Interest rates, currencies futures options. .. even things like changes in liquidity and volatility have an affect on prices. Other stocks... commodities.
All of the examples you just named as "changing multiple times per second" do so because of the existence of day trading and HFT. Really, it's just the markets valuation of these things that change this rapidly.
It's easy to see some of these... e.g. the price of Kraft Foods is affected by the supply of milk and pork belly futures. Since those things directly affect the profitability of the company. Other things are harder to trace out... there may be many steps involved. Practically speaking, everything of value can affect the price of other things of value.
Supply of milk - a real example. Futures are again the market's valuation of something, but supply of milk is actually something real. So, how often is data released on the supply of milk? How much do the estimates change in a day? What about in a week, or a month? Sure, in any given day there could be a significant change in estimates, but how often do such large changes occur? What is the mean time between significant changes? Much longer than the mean time between HFT transactions - orders of magnitude longer.
So yeah, the value of things change all the time.
As for your underlying premise, that stocks are somehow "meant" to be held on to, it's totally false.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of misunderstanding me, rather than attempting to produce a straw-man. I did not say that stocks are "meant to be held on to". I said that the purpose of the stock market is to allow fractional investment in companies, and to provide capital for the companies deemed worthy of investment.
You already admitted that the term was arbitrary. Further, there is no benefit.
The benefit is the elimination of the effective tax and volatility introduced by day trading and HFT.
Forcing a third party to hold on to a falling stock is pointless: 1 selling doesn't affect the company 2 to sell there must be a willing buyer.
I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of the above sentence. Could you rephrase it?
Worse, it slows the market,
Which there is nothing inherently wrong with.
and increases risk.
Which is an acceptable drawback.
Increased risk increases the cost of buying and selling and investing.
Such artificial inefficiencies harm the market overall.
But not as much as day trading and HFT.
Your trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist with a rule that would be only harmful.
I'm trying to eliminate the effective tax introduced by day trading and HFT. The cure has a slight disadvantage of increasing risk, but overall it would be a dramatic improvement.
If a slight hit to the Euro completely reverses Bob's investment decision, then perhaps it was not a good investment. This is no different than any investment - you account for the possible risks and possible rewards and make your decision.
Yes, a holding period does add risk by reducing liquidity, but like I said earlier, the purpose of the stock market is not to provide highly liquid investment opportunities. The purpose of the stock market is to allow fractional investment in a company, and to provide companies with investment capital. If the company has close competitors, there will obviously be a risk associated with investing in said company.
And again, there is a positive effect to a holding time - it eliminates short-term traders who effectively act as a tax on the actual investors. The billions of dollars that day trading and HFT firms make each year would go to the actual investors.
Regardless of whether or not you agree how the profit is spent (you can always become active in the legislative process), Austin Energy is still a successful government-run entity.
You made me choke on my drink haha
Yes, 24 hours is arbitrary. I think the actual time should be a reasonable fraction of the mean time between significant market changes. And by market changes, I don't mean stock market changes - I mean actual market changes, like new products being offered, or prices being changed (not speculative prices, but real prices). The actual value of a company does not change as rapidly as the stock market valuation of said company changes. If you are not confident enough in an investment to hold it for 24 hours, you should not be making the investment in the first place.
The stock market was created to make fractional investment in corporations possible, providing otherwise unattainable capital to corporations. Day trading and HFT tax the long-term investors in said system by increasing volatility.
Okay, let me re-qualify my point. I shouldn't have implied there are never legitimate reasons for wanting to get rid of stock the same day you purchased it. What I should have said is that stocks were created for long-term investment, and that day trading and HFT are perversions of this system which effectively tax long-term investors. By implementing a minimum hold time, you could eliminate these perversions at the cost of marginally higher risk to actual investors. Since long-term investors should be basing their decisions on more than market movements, this marginal risk is acceptable.
Of course, this is hardly clearer than my original statement; it is certainly more accurate, though.
I do like the idea of splitting revokes and reissues into two separate events. It's not foolproof, but this would give time for humans to get involved.
Thank you for the lengthy explanation. I do think I understand better, now, the argument for HFT. However, your argument for HFT seems to be based solely on the idea that it reduces margins between sellers and buyers, in effect my keeping transaction costs low.
My problem with your argument is that you assume small margins between sellers and buyers is a good thing. Good for day traders and HFTs, maybe, but good for long term investors, I'm not so sure. In fact, I think one could make a solid argument that large transaction costs are preferable for minimizing market volatility. Yes, large transaction costs would also reduce liquidity, but who ever said stocks should be highly liquid? If you want a liquid asset, stay in cash.
Ultimately stocks were created to allow companies to raise long term capital, and for long-term investors to take partial stake in said company. Day trading and HFT are perversions of a system originally developed for long term investment. The current situation of rampant day trading and high-frequency trading taxes the long term investors by introducing high market volatility. My disgust over why these activities were not banned 30 years ago remains.
Are you one of the extreme libertarians that think all road systems should be privatized, and we should have 3 highways to everywhere with competing tolls (which would inevitably be higher than the tax cost of building one highway)? Because if you aren't, I don't see how you think the corollary for internet access is preferable.
I live in Austin, where we have municipal run electric utility, Austin Energy, which is one of the cheapest in Texas. In addition, the profits (which are over $100 million a year) go to funding other city services and projects. There are certainly wasteful government-run organisations in the world, but not all government-run organisations are wasteful. Please take your faith-based and ideology-based opinions elsewhere.
Reminds me of "Winter is coming". OT, I know, but I think the unpredictability of winter is probably the most interesting thing about the Game of Thrones series.
Anyways, while I'm at it, great sig quote ;-)
Finally, someone who isn't completely bashing this idea. I think these look awesome. I loved the CoD MW franchise on PS3, and several FPSs on prior consoles, but KB&M will always beat thumbsticks for FPSs. I could actually see these rivaling KBM. I agree with the guy who said these won't be as good as thumbsticks for racing games, but you can't win them all.
Valve really is doing some revolutionary things for gaming - far more so than the big 3.
There's also the issue of how to update your public key in the web of trust, if your private key gets compromised. Any mechanism you implement for doing this could be hijacked by a third party in order to change your public key to theirs, thereby nullifying the point of having multiple separate CAs.
Real men certify identity the old way: a single certificate encrypted by hand. If there's no chance for a (digital) life-ending catastrophe, you're not doing it right.
Why only 15 seconds? Why not 24 hours? What reason, other than gaming the system, could there ever be to hold a stock for less than 24 hours? I don't understand why this wasn't made illegal 30 years ago... Well, I do - the people making the laws are the people profiting from them - but the reason is not a good one.
Ahh. I misunderstood the claim. They're using an oscillating field and detector array to measure the local conductivity in the near field - thereby making my complaint based on diffraction theory irrelevant.
Then he becomes a god of the gaps.
Agreed. That strong of a field seems unlikely to exist at all times. He may have based his estimate on the field strength prior to a lightning strike, which is on the order of a megavolt (10^6 V). Over a distance of 10 km (10^4 m), the approximate distance from ground to clouds, that works out to ~100 V/m. However, such large fields are not always present.