Maybe someone who understands the function of day trading better than I do can explain what purpose it serves besides making a few individuals rich at the expense of everyone else
Day trading, or any trading in a time frame shorter than what -you- consider to be the right time frame, benefits you because it creates liquidity in the market. High market liquidity means you can get into or out of assets more quickly, and at lower cost than a lower liquidity situation. For example, consider buying and then immediately selling 100 shares of a $50 stock. At the time of your purchase, there is a difference betwen the bid and ask price, typically 3 to 5 cents these days. (It used to be 1/16 or an 1/8 of a point, or 7 to 15 cents or so. Modern tradining velocity has narrowed the gap). You could turn around and immediately sell the stock for probably about 5 cents less than you bought it, and your loss would be about $5.00 plus commisions, typically 8 to 10 bucks each way. This means it's pretty low risk for you to get into a stock. If you change your mind, you can dump it easily.
Now consider buying a house. Let's say it's a cheap house , $100,000. If you buuy the house, and then get transferred, it's hard to sell the house. It can take weeks, you have no idea what the price will be, and you are likely to lose from 5 to 10% of the proceeds in transaction costs. Houses are illiquid compared to stocks. If it were easy and cheap to trade houses, these transaction costs would drop, and the rapdity of sales would rise.
So, invidious as it may seem, short term traders per se actually help you and me.
There are many other practices engaged in by the pros for which this statement cannot be made. Google naked shorting of stocks, for a major one.
They can do it the same way that us geezers have had to do it, by figuring out that something is important and studying it on your own. Says the guy with grey hair and an accounting degree who is building a Hadoop based prototype to test replacing mainframe processing systems with a map-reduce approach.
It's not accurate to say that normalization is useless - it's more accurate that normalization has costs that can become large, especially when you are sequentially processing an entire dataset.
For example, consider the following Employee table Name| Position |salary Andrew| programmer|40,000 Joe|tester|43000 Jane|programmer|60000 --fucking reverse discrimination!
If you were to normalize this, you'd factor out the position column into a positions table position_key| position 1|pregrammer 2|tester
and change the employee table to Name|position_key|salary Andrew|1|40000 Joe|2|43000 Jane|1|60000
And you'd get the records by using 'select name, position, salary from employee join positions on employee.position_key = positions.position key where [some condition is true]|[1=1]
This is fine and good in an application database, and it has benefits for maintainability, etc. However, it creates an assembly job for the database on every query. If you were doing this for a company of 400 employees, no big deal. If you were doing this for a census tabulation for the US, it could add appreciably to cost and time for the job. If you have large datasets that you are processing sequentially, that assembly job can become untenably expensive, regardless of how good your DB engine is or how fast your hardware is. You eliminate that cost by accepting the denormalized form, which increases your disk usage, but may reduce your processing time. The DB optimizers try to handle this, but it still results in instruction cycles being applied.
So, like most things in data processing and the real world, it depends. This is a good example of the difference between computer science and software engineering.
I think you are correct in your assessment. I don't think either are gambling. Poker is a game of skill, where the skill has components of managing chance and your opponents.
it surprises me, given the invention and popularity of the internet, how many americans still struggle to think globally, and still assume that the rest of the world on their terms. this is not intended to be a troll or flamebait or personal insult, it's merely my own stated opinion.
I think you can be forgiven for your observation/opinion, given how well it conforms to the visible data. Says the 50+ year American citizen.
Oh, it's correct, and you can find this out for yourself from company's website See also this on Arthur Andersen. The Enron debacle dealt with Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm. Arthur Andersen had a consulting arm at the time, but that organization had no connection with Andersen Consulting ==> Accenture. Andersen Consulting was originally Arthur Andersens MICD division, which split legally from Arthur Andersen in 1988 (I was with the company at the time).
After Andersen Consulting spun off, it grew rapidly. During that same time, profits at all accounting firms including Arthur Andersen, were flat, so the accounting firms, including Arthur, developed consulting practices to try and increase revenues and margins. Arthur formed Arther Andersen Business Consulting, which grew rapidly. I was hired into, and quickly left that organization. It is completely distinct legally and operationally from Andersen Consulting/Accenture, and ultimately ended up competing with Accenture for some work.
Andersen Consulting changed their name to Accenture largely because of confusion in the marketplace between Arthur Andersen's consulting practice and their own. Arthur's Consulting practice was a highly fragmented and locally managed business - each office ran their own show. Andersen Consulting/Accenture is a much more centrally managed company. The fragmented nature of Arthur's practice allowed a situation to develop where the Dallas office had some rogue partners, who ignored the company Quality Assurance function in order to grow the Enron business, with the results that we are all familiar with. I left Arthur Andersen after a year, in 1998, because I could see the foundations for this disaster.
Accenture has a long history of tarnished projects, and a not so publicized long history of successful projects. However, Accenture had no connection with the Enron debacle, which was not a systems project failure, but rather a failure of the accounting audit/oversight/attest function, where Arthur Andersen signed off on the bogus partnerships which Enron used to hide liabilities. At the end of the Enron debacle, Arthur Andersen was dissassembled and is no more, as a result of their role. Accenture lives still today.
Oh, for mod points. This is exactly on point. Security is never perfect. It's only possible to asymptotically approach perfect security. Even the canonical unplugged, powered off disconnected server behind a loncked door is vlunerable to a man with a key, an extension cord, and an ethernet cable.
Security needs to be managed to the point where the level of risk qualified by the probable damage due to compromise is appropriate for the needs of the organization/individual affected. Additional measures beyond that point are wasteful.
why didn't the LSE hire a team to develop a.NET system in-house, then?
My takeaway from the article (yeah, I know, I read it, sorry) was they bought the company because it had a solution built. I'd be surprised if the platform used was anywhere near as important as functionality and performance. Which is as it should be.
Now, it would be interesting to understand the history of the purchased outfit - how did they arrive at their decisions, and what would they do differently.
it was tainted by the company that had to change their name from Andersons to escape a very bad reputation
Accenture changed their name well before the Enron debacle. They are unrelated events. Part of the goal of the name change was indeed to create a brand separate from Arthur Andersen, but at the time it was done, the Arthur Andersen brand name was untarnished.
I worked for both companies before the name change took effect, and have friends in both companies at the partner level.
The only thing that seems strange is the cost disparity..NET apps are usually much cheaper to develop,
You caught where they had Accenture as the integrator. That's where your cost came from. And probably where the relatively poor performance came from. Accenture gets projects done, for the most part, but their history is full of situations like this..Net is not productive enough to overcome the bad effects of legions of inexperienced developers.
I'd be surprised if a strong team couldn't develop a fast, economical replacement using.Net. Or Java. Or Scala.
Disclosure: I worked for Accenture for 10 years, a long time ago, before they were Accenture. I was one of the more technical folk, which should scare you.
Run this, and then the number of combinations becomes less important.
Like all of us, I have the usual port surfers come by. They get five tries, and then their IP gets blacklisted.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Do you drive a car? Take a bus to work? Mow your lawn with a gas lawn mower? Grill with charcoal? All of those things put vastly more stuff into the air than my cigarettes do. What solution do you propose that still lets my family have clean air?
On the other hand (sorry), let's say the guy whacked off three times a day, each and every day, took 10 minutes a shot, and was paid $100k/year. He makes about $48/hour, and took $24 worth of time to ahem, relax. Over 250 work days a year, he's screwed us out of a maximum of $6000. That's in the extreme case. Most of us spent that long reading this article.
I can't get worried. The right way to manage people's productivity is to monitor their work output, not how they spend their time. Its easier, more objective, and keeps you out of court.
I can play. We spend $5000 a cpu for Ciber Fusion file transfer software, which uses the SFTP native on the machine, and sends passwords in the clear, and requires world write on everything. Because "it's our standard". We spend $23,000 a machine for SQL Server Enterprise, when either SQL Server Standard Edition ($1800) or PostGresQL or MYSQL would do the job. Because, "it's our standard".
Computers get used for a lot more than what the typical home/office environment demands
Yeah, in > 2% of the usages. I've done shop floor machine control programing, which you have to program to the device. For rational applications, the app should mate to an http interface. If you can't do that, you either have a truly unusual problem, of which I cannot conceive I'm sure because of my impossibilly small brain, or you're an incompetent.
Dude, a fine is something that happens as a result of a government action. You are discussing contractual penalties. Which are only assessed in the context of a lawsuit. Which requires an issuer to sue you, and you to lose.
PCI DSS is a contractual obligation between the people who take credit cards and the companies who manage the CC business. You aren't bound by it, until you sign an agreement. Which is negotiable, if you're big enough.
There are plenty of applications that don't lend themselves well to running in a browser.
Name two. I don't mean to be a dick about about it, but criminy. You can do visual fps games, payroll applications, map lookups, spatial rendering, and social networking in a browser, how can you say that a browser isn't if not an ideal platform, is at least an adequate platform to deliver s decent user experience and solve most application needs?
If you're not doing CAD or Photoshop, or some other narrow niche, what do you need another interface for?
any DNS changes to a domain has to be done via fax on a letter with the company's header.
While I can understand that this is a royal pain in the Ass, it's also a fairly good procedure. Faxes have the sending phone number on them usually, which is a decent validation component. The letterhead is another decent step, assuming they compare it to something on file. I don't think you want people changing your routing just based on a phone call without more identification somehow. These are exactly the steps that a malevolent user might find too challenging to bother with.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe someone who understands the function of day trading better than I do can explain what purpose it serves besides making a few individuals rich at the expense of everyone else
Day trading, or any trading in a time frame shorter than what -you- consider to be the right time frame, benefits you because it creates liquidity in the market. High market liquidity means you can get into or out of assets more quickly, and at lower cost than a lower liquidity situation. For example, consider buying and then immediately selling 100 shares of a $50 stock. At the time of your purchase, there is a difference betwen the bid and ask price, typically 3 to 5 cents these days. (It used to be 1/16 or an 1/8 of a point, or 7 to 15 cents or so. Modern tradining velocity has narrowed the gap). You could turn around and immediately sell the stock for probably about 5 cents less than you bought it, and your loss would be about $5.00 plus commisions, typically 8 to 10 bucks each way. This means it's pretty low risk for you to get into a stock. If you change your mind, you can dump it easily.
Now consider buying a house. Let's say it's a cheap house , $100,000. If you buuy the house, and then get transferred, it's hard to sell the house. It can take weeks, you have no idea what the price will be, and you are likely to lose from 5 to 10% of the proceeds in transaction costs. Houses are illiquid compared to stocks. If it were easy and cheap to trade houses, these transaction costs would drop, and the rapdity of sales would rise.
So, invidious as it may seem, short term traders per se actually help you and me.
There are many other practices engaged in by the pros for which this statement cannot be made. Google naked shorting of stocks, for a major one.
Give them Python, and we'll be safe again.
They can do it the same way that us geezers have had to do it, by figuring out that something is important and studying it on your own. Says the guy with grey hair and an accounting degree who is building a Hadoop based prototype to test replacing mainframe processing systems with a map-reduce approach.
It's not accurate to say that normalization is useless - it's more accurate that normalization has costs that can become large, especially when you are sequentially processing an entire dataset.
For example, consider the following
Employee table
Name| Position |salary
Andrew| programmer|40,000
Joe|tester|43000
Jane|programmer|60000 --fucking reverse discrimination!
If you were to normalize this, you'd factor out the position column into a positions table
position_key| position
1|pregrammer
2|tester
and change the employee table to
Name|position_key|salary
Andrew|1|40000
Joe|2|43000
Jane|1|60000
And you'd get the records by using 'select name, position, salary from employee join positions on employee.position_key = positions.position key where [some condition is true]|[1=1]
This is fine and good in an application database, and it has benefits for maintainability, etc. However, it creates an assembly job for the database on every query. If you were doing this for a company of 400 employees, no big deal. If you were doing this for a census tabulation for the US, it could add appreciably to cost and time for the job. If you have large datasets that you are processing sequentially, that assembly job can become untenably expensive, regardless of how good your DB engine is or how fast your hardware is. You eliminate that cost by accepting the denormalized form, which increases your disk usage, but may reduce your processing time. The DB optimizers try to handle this, but it still results in instruction cycles being applied.
So, like most things in data processing and the real world, it depends. This is a good example of the difference between computer science and software engineering.
I think you are correct in your assessment. I don't think either are gambling. Poker is a game of skill, where the skill has components of managing chance and your opponents.
It could be a night spent hacking filesystem driver code while fucking the wife.
Wow, that really raises the bar over walking and chewing gum at the same time. I am not worthy.
it surprises me, given the invention and popularity of the internet, how many americans still struggle to think globally, and still assume that the rest of the world on their terms. this is not intended to be a troll or flamebait or personal insult, it's merely my own stated opinion.
I think you can be forgiven for your observation/opinion, given how well it conforms to the visible data. Says the 50+ year American citizen.
Something tells me you have grey hair and wrinkles. And I say that in a good way.
Out of curiosity, what did you all use for removal tools? Is there any product you particularly like for detection at the PC level?
Oh, it's correct, and you can find this out for yourself from company's website See also this on Arthur Andersen. The Enron debacle dealt with Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm. Arthur Andersen had a consulting arm at the time, but that organization had no connection with Andersen Consulting ==> Accenture. Andersen Consulting was originally Arthur Andersens MICD division, which split legally from Arthur Andersen in 1988 (I was with the company at the time).
After Andersen Consulting spun off, it grew rapidly. During that same time, profits at all accounting firms including Arthur Andersen, were flat, so the accounting firms, including Arthur, developed consulting practices to try and increase revenues and margins. Arthur formed Arther Andersen Business Consulting, which grew rapidly. I was hired into, and quickly left that organization. It is completely distinct legally and operationally from Andersen Consulting/Accenture, and ultimately ended up competing with Accenture for some work.
Andersen Consulting changed their name to Accenture largely because of confusion in the marketplace between Arthur Andersen's consulting practice and their own. Arthur's Consulting practice was a highly fragmented and locally managed business - each office ran their own show. Andersen Consulting/Accenture is a much more centrally managed company. The fragmented nature of Arthur's practice allowed a situation to develop where the Dallas office had some rogue partners, who ignored the company Quality Assurance function in order to grow the Enron business, with the results that we are all familiar with. I left Arthur Andersen after a year, in 1998, because I could see the foundations for this disaster.
Accenture has a long history of tarnished projects, and a not so publicized long history of successful projects. However, Accenture had no connection with the Enron debacle, which was not a systems project failure, but rather a failure of the accounting audit/oversight/attest function, where Arthur Andersen signed off on the bogus partnerships which Enron used to hide liabilities. At the end of the Enron debacle, Arthur Andersen was dissassembled and is no more, as a result of their role. Accenture lives still today.
Are you kidding me? It's text! Microsoft considers plain text dangerous now?
Oblig: Little Bobby Tables, we call him...
Text -is- often dangerous.
Oh, for mod points. This is exactly on point. Security is never perfect. It's only possible to asymptotically approach perfect security. Even the canonical unplugged, powered off disconnected server behind a loncked door is vlunerable to a man with a key, an extension cord, and an ethernet cable.
Security needs to be managed to the point where the level of risk qualified by the probable damage due to compromise is appropriate for the needs of the organization/individual affected. Additional measures beyond that point are wasteful.
why didn't the LSE hire a team to develop a .NET system in-house, then?
My takeaway from the article (yeah, I know, I read it, sorry) was they bought the company because it had a solution built. I'd be surprised if the platform used was anywhere near as important as functionality and performance. Which is as it should be.
Now, it would be interesting to understand the history of the purchased outfit - how did they arrive at their decisions, and what would they do differently.
it was tainted by the company that had to change their name from Andersons to escape a very bad reputation
Accenture changed their name well before the Enron debacle. They are unrelated events. Part of the goal of the name change was indeed to create a brand separate from Arthur Andersen, but at the time it was done, the Arthur Andersen brand name was untarnished.
I worked for both companies before the name change took effect, and have friends in both companies at the partner level.
The only thing that seems strange is the cost disparity. .NET apps are usually much cheaper to develop,
You caught where they had Accenture as the integrator. That's where your cost came from. And probably where the relatively poor performance came from. Accenture gets projects done, for the most part, but their history is full of situations like this. .Net is not productive enough to overcome the bad effects of legions of inexperienced developers.
I'd be surprised if a strong team couldn't develop a fast, economical replacement using .Net. Or Java. Or Scala.
Disclosure: I worked for Accenture for 10 years, a long time ago, before they were Accenture. I was one of the more technical folk, which should scare you.
Run this, and then the number of combinations becomes less important.
Like all of us, I have the usual port surfers come by. They get five tries, and then their IP gets blacklisted.
Do you drive a car? Take a bus to work? Mow your lawn with a gas lawn mower? Grill with charcoal? All of those things put vastly more stuff into the air than my cigarettes do. What solution do you propose that still lets my family have clean air?
On the other hand (sorry), let's say the guy whacked off three times a day, each and every day, took 10 minutes a shot, and was paid $100k/year. He makes about $48/hour, and took $24 worth of time to ahem, relax. Over 250 work days a year, he's screwed us out of a maximum of $6000. That's in the extreme case. Most of us spent that long reading this article.
I can't get worried. The right way to manage people's productivity is to monitor their work output, not how they spend their time. Its easier, more objective, and keeps you out of court.
I can play. We spend $5000 a cpu for Ciber Fusion file transfer software, which uses the SFTP native on the machine, and sends passwords in the clear, and requires world write on everything. Because "it's our standard". We spend $23,000 a machine for SQL Server Enterprise, when either SQL Server Standard Edition ($1800) or PostGresQL or MYSQL would do the job. Because, "it's our standard".
Computers get used for a lot more than what the typical home/office environment demands
Yeah, in > 2% of the usages. I've done shop floor machine control programing, which you have to program to the device. For rational applications, the app should mate to an http interface. If you can't do that, you either have a truly unusual problem, of which I cannot conceive I'm sure because of my impossibilly small brain, or you're an incompetent.
Dude, a fine is something that happens as a result of a government action. You are discussing contractual penalties. Which are only assessed in the context of a lawsuit. Which requires an issuer to sue you, and you to lose.
PCI DSS is a contractual obligation between the people who take credit cards and the companies who manage the CC business. You aren't bound by it, until you sign an agreement. Which is negotiable, if you're big enough.
There are plenty of applications that don't lend themselves well to running in a browser.
Name two. I don't mean to be a dick about about it, but criminy. You can do visual fps games, payroll applications, map lookups, spatial rendering, and social networking in a browser, how can you say that a browser isn't if not an ideal platform, is at least an adequate platform to deliver s decent user experience and solve most application needs?
If you're not doing CAD or Photoshop, or some other narrow niche, what do you need another interface for?
Um, you, sir, are ignorant of what really happens. And of the content of the contracts.
Rather, he's saying there will be a common platform
Which is why we care about having a standardized browser. If you have that, then the platform becomes a moot point.
any DNS changes to a domain has to be done via fax on a letter with the company's header.
While I can understand that this is a royal pain in the Ass, it's also a fairly good procedure. Faxes have the sending phone number on them usually, which is a decent validation component. The letterhead is another decent step, assuming they compare it to something on file. I don't think you want people changing your routing just based on a phone call without more identification somehow. These are exactly the steps that a malevolent user might find too challenging to bother with.