Search results

i guess there were 2 different sellers at your price level, only one of which agreed to bust the trade. - jaan

do what we do: decrease your size when in a slump. - jaan

FWIW, here are some excellent articles on the subject: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=6099 http://www.nandotimes.com/entertainment/story/475490p-3800512c.html - jaan

no, i don't think so. as you know, velocity is a relative thing. you might be standing still relative to your computer, but at the same time you are hurtling along at ridiculous speeds relative to most astral bodies out there. apparently, what matters from the time dilatation aspect, is...

hmm... interesting question, but i'm not too well prepared to answer that. you see, as described by the theory of relativity, the passage of time is relative to the (speed of) observer. hence, there is no "universal time" that your question implies. of course, one can calculate all sorts of...

minor correction: now that others have started quoting you on this, i thought i'd point out that the correct term is either "occam's razor" or "ockham's razor", with the former being a tad more popular: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html well, in my view, an action is immoral if a) it...

actually, no. as far as i know, the universe is believed to be a "hypersphere" -- ie a sphere, only in 3D, not 2D. so there is no central point to the universe -- all points are equal, just like on the surface of a sphere. (i'm not an astrophysicist though, so i i'm not really familiar with...

no-no, the universe is not expanding into anything, it's the space that's expanding. here's an article that tries to explain it: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node116.html - jaan

yes, i agree. however, up until recently it was thought that the early organisms could only have been sprung into existance thanks to a giant coincidence. hence the statements that the "unassisted" development of life was "nonsense of the highest order", that you quoted. - jaan ps. thanks...

hmm, i'm not sure i understand the question. in our case the r&d was done inhouse (i'm a partner in a small codeshop) with time being spent pretty much equally on three things: 1. developing custom tools for historical data analysis and simulation, 2. designing and testing different systems...

currently we just try to keep the size at optimum -- after big hits we lower our size and vice versa. our system still has a long way to go to cover the development cost, so it will be a while before we can continue researching new strategies. - jaan

that statement is, again, clearly against the trend. here's an experiment from a couple of years ago (i recall there was another one just a few months ago, but i was unable to find a link): http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/pr.html wow, bingo! a world would be much happier place if popular...

yes, we trade a system that has hit what we call "scalability limit", so in a way we deal with it every day. it sucks. it not only flattens the capital growth, it messes up the historical data -- periods where we have traded have different backtesting characteristics from those where we did not...

here's a question for you, dark: what's your take on other religions out there? do you respect them as equal to christianity or not? if you do, then do you think all religions refer to the same god? - jaan

the term "models" would be more appropriate than "definitions" here. scientists deal with the "hairyness" of the real world by constructing abstract models of its aspects and then analysing the models. of course, models are never 100% accurate, but they don't have to be -- a properly designed...

well, that depends on your definition of a "paradox". the well known fact that electron has both wave-like poperties and particle-like properties does not qualify as a paradox in my book, because both "particle" and "wave" are just macro-level objects used to compare the electron with. just...

bad example. nothing in QM is contradictionary -- it's a perfectly consistent theory. the reality on quantum scale just happens to be different from our everyday "macro-reality". you are right about inherent paradoxes in mathematics though. i think the more correct way of putting it would be...

wow, that guy must have really short memory... decimals since 2000. yeah right. - jaan

up to 3k, which can be very visible on less liquid stocks. def: thanks! dlincke: note that for TWS API users (such as myself), the 0.1 cent pricing would be useful without any further changes to TWS. - jaan

i second that. selectivity does not favour consistency. - jaan