I think the situation people mostly worry about with market making is where Alice submits an offer to sell for at least $1.00 and Bob submits an offer to buy for no more than $1.02. There's $0.02 of surplus here, and we would expect it to get somehow split between Alice and Bob. When we add in Martin (market maker) to the scene, people worry that he would accept both Alice's and Bob's offers and pocket some of that $0.02 surplus for himself. If Alice and Bob both put in their orders at the same time, then Martin is obviously left out, but it's never really simultaneous. This leaves a time window when Martin could potentially insert his own pair of buy and sell orders. If it's a rather slow market, and Bob's orders appears a few days after Alice's, it's reasonably clear what service Martin is providing (Alice can quickly and reliably offload this thing she no longer wants, and the item is readily available for Bob to buy when he finally wants it).
On the other hand, if the market isn't so slow, and Martin is doing HFT, it's less clear what Alice and Bob gain from him. If he's able to take a position and close it in a matter of seconds, people start to wonder just how much better off Alice is from having been able to finish her sale seconds earlier. It looks like we've got diminishing returns as Martin's holding periods shorten. His claim that he's providing liquidity looks dubious in a market that has to already be pretty liquid to support the activity people see from him, so they suspect they're being hoodwinked. Modern technology enables really large scale market making, so Martin's got a lot of money flowing in, which makes people even more suspicious.
Personally, as a rather small-time investor, I don't really fret about this. Even if it is the case that I am getting some of what would otherwise be my money skimmed off by someone claiming to have provided liquidity that was already present, I don't make enough trades for that potential loss to matter much. I worry more about whether this is a good (for society) use of the math/engineering talent we produce.
Because his "no warming since 1998" claim relies on some serious cherry-picking of temperature data, and he's afraid of people linking this dishonesty back to him.
Seems to me that for an internship to be educational to the intern, she needs to be doing something useful.
IIRC, a SCOTUS case dealt with a trainee program run by a railroad company where prospective rail workers would essentially do simulated work, supervised by actual rail workers. SCOTUS ruled that their arrangement did not require pay, and listed the fact that it was simulated, not real, work as a necessary condition.
The question is whether they really want to be unpaid or if unpaid work is just something they have to bend over and take in order to have a career. If the system effectively requires those new to the field to work without pay for a time, it is certainly not for the new workers' benefit, yet those defending the unpaid work keep on claiming that it is.
The fact is the current Soyuz launch record without fatalities is quite definitely and literally significantly better.
Except the "current streak" metric is close to meaningless. It depends too much on when the sample is taken. Even with two agencies of equal success rates, it is very unlikely for them to have equally long success streaks at an arbitrary point in time. This is the same reason why "current uptime" is not a good metric for system stability. Run the numbers for MTTF, and then we have something to talk about.
Is learning another language really so hard for you? With a good background in CS, it shouldn't take you more than a week to be able to start producing code in a new language. If you can't keep up with the arrival of new tools, you probably missed something while you were in school. The skills you claim are valuable would not help you here; the skills you claim are useless are practically required.
Good programmers should be able to pass a competency test for any employer. If they pass that test, they should be able to seek the job, degree or not.
The process HR has in place (including checking the applicant's education) saves a lot of time (and thus money) in exchange for a relatively small hit to accuracy.
There's a lot of assumptions not being declared in your post (e.g. power and bandwidth of whitespace devices). Would you mind pointing me to the tests that determined this?
Do you believe that anything that is allowed must be allowed by law?
I don't know about GP, but it seems that you do think so. Otherwise, maybe you'd say what law it is that makes it illegal to implement network neutrality instead of trying to avoid the question.
Re:Glad it's not Sony or Microsoft or some other c
on
NYC Lawyers Subpoena Code
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think GP's point is that it's easier to be evil when you aren't signing your own name to the order.
There's something fundamentally repulsive about making money by shuffling other resources around and generating no utility yourself. Not that it stops people from trying anyway.
It does not define "authorized access". However, if without engaging in any spoofing or fraudulent behavior, you request access and are granted access, there is no way that any rational human being could hold that you have "knowledge that the access is unauthorized".
You might also go with the rule that simply being granted access is not a reasonable basis to assume you're authorized. Unless the law specifies this, all we can do is speculate.
Is that what the statue says, what case law says, or just what some slashdotter says? If it's the first, we're good to go. If it's the second, things are a bit shaky. If it's the third, it's just speculation.
The router is not sentient. It has no ability to judge, and despite the fact that it may invite some people in does not mean it is entitled to do so or that they are entitled to enter.
Sentient or not it's making decisions and letting people in (and it's also capable of denying access). We don't need a law saying whether unauthorized access is allowed -- we already have that. What's needed is an explicit rule about what constitutes authorization, so there won't be this kind of questioning.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the situation people mostly worry about with market making is where Alice submits an offer to sell for at least $1.00 and Bob submits an offer to buy for no more than $1.02. There's $0.02 of surplus here, and we would expect it to get somehow split between Alice and Bob. When we add in Martin (market maker) to the scene, people worry that he would accept both Alice's and Bob's offers and pocket some of that $0.02 surplus for himself. If Alice and Bob both put in their orders at the same time, then Martin is obviously left out, but it's never really simultaneous. This leaves a time window when Martin could potentially insert his own pair of buy and sell orders. If it's a rather slow market, and Bob's orders appears a few days after Alice's, it's reasonably clear what service Martin is providing (Alice can quickly and reliably offload this thing she no longer wants, and the item is readily available for Bob to buy when he finally wants it).
On the other hand, if the market isn't so slow, and Martin is doing HFT, it's less clear what Alice and Bob gain from him. If he's able to take a position and close it in a matter of seconds, people start to wonder just how much better off Alice is from having been able to finish her sale seconds earlier. It looks like we've got diminishing returns as Martin's holding periods shorten. His claim that he's providing liquidity looks dubious in a market that has to already be pretty liquid to support the activity people see from him, so they suspect they're being hoodwinked. Modern technology enables really large scale market making, so Martin's got a lot of money flowing in, which makes people even more suspicious.
Personally, as a rather small-time investor, I don't really fret about this. Even if it is the case that I am getting some of what would otherwise be my money skimmed off by someone claiming to have provided liquidity that was already present, I don't make enough trades for that potential loss to matter much. I worry more about whether this is a good (for society) use of the math/engineering talent we produce.
Now show that this warming trend is really just the upward half of a fluctuation that's been repeating every eleven years.
Oh, you didn't know the sunspot cycle was only eleven years long? Maybe you should have researched a bit about sun activity.
Because his "no warming since 1998" claim relies on some serious cherry-picking of temperature data, and he's afraid of people linking this dishonesty back to him.
My first thought was "grad student." Income that just barely covers basic expenses, travels to conferences, etc....
Having a monopoly on publications of Shakespeare's works would probably affect the supply.
IIRC, a SCOTUS case dealt with a trainee program run by a railroad company where prospective rail workers would essentially do simulated work, supervised by actual rail workers. SCOTUS ruled that their arrangement did not require pay, and listed the fact that it was simulated, not real, work as a necessary condition.
The question is whether they really want to be unpaid or if unpaid work is just something they have to bend over and take in order to have a career. If the system effectively requires those new to the field to work without pay for a time, it is certainly not for the new workers' benefit, yet those defending the unpaid work keep on claiming that it is.
Except the "current streak" metric is close to meaningless. It depends too much on when the sample is taken. Even with two agencies of equal success rates, it is very unlikely for them to have equally long success streaks at an arbitrary point in time. This is the same reason why "current uptime" is not a good metric for system stability. Run the numbers for MTTF, and then we have something to talk about.
Aye. The judges want specific statute cited?
18 USC 1343
Actually, tmmagee talked about lesson plans devised while not employed as a teacher. That is about as much "on your own time" as it gets.
Is learning another language really so hard for you? With a good background in CS, it shouldn't take you more than a week to be able to start producing code in a new language. If you can't keep up with the arrival of new tools, you probably missed something while you were in school.
The skills you claim are valuable would not help you here; the skills you claim are useless are practically required.
GP's point is that introducing more PhD holders into the system will only benefit the schools that need it least.
The process HR has in place (including checking the applicant's education) saves a lot of time (and thus money) in exchange for a relatively small hit to accuracy.
Those who can't do, can't teach.
I've always taken a different tack: only someone who wishes me ill would try to deprive me of anonymity/privacy.
There's a lot of assumptions not being declared in your post (e.g. power and bandwidth of whitespace devices). Would you mind pointing me to the tests that determined this?
Here, violate it yourself!
I don't know about GP, but it seems that you do think so. Otherwise, maybe you'd say what law it is that makes it illegal to implement network neutrality instead of trying to avoid the question.
I think GP's point is that it's easier to be evil when you aren't signing your own name to the order.
There's something fundamentally repulsive about making money by shuffling other resources around and generating no utility yourself. Not that it stops people from trying anyway.
Yes, it's a slippery slope. My point is and has been that this rule ought to be explicitly specified in statute.
Is that what the statue says, what case law says, or just what some slashdotter says? If it's the first, we're good to go. If it's the second, things are a bit shaky. If it's the third, it's just speculation.