andylei

29 ms·

271.
by andylei 14y ago
>> This is most likely the catalyst for why UBS is actually suing unlikely. from their quarterly report " NASDAQ ultimately filled all of these orders, exposing UBS to far more shares than our clients had ordered". their clients or
272.
by andylei 14y ago
they were client orders. their clients wanted to buy FB
273.
by andylei 14y ago
> It's an open-and-shut case if the power existed to prosecute it. if that were true, why are their customers not suing them for fraud? seems like they'd win a lot of money pretty easily if it were an open and shut case.
274.
by andylei 14y ago
cleaning is how you transform this years crops into next year's seeds. one of the agreements you sign when you buy roundup-ready seeds is that you don't clean seeds. basically, by seed cleaning, you don't have to buy more roundup ready seed
275.
by andylei 14y ago
this is not at all like blaming bittorrent sites for pirating look, you don't understand what this seed cleaner was doing. monsanto does not go around suing every seed cleaner in the midwest just because they could be cleaning roundup ready
276.
by andylei 14y ago
how does this experiment have any relation to reality? i think you're implying that this farmer happened upon an entire field of crops that he did not plant, then determined that this field was seeded using roundup-ready seeds, and then spr
277.
by andylei 14y ago
look, if you think a news article quoting Moe Parr about someone suing him is convincing evidence, i'm not really sure if you'll believe this, but here's some evidence indicating that Moe Parr is in the wrong: this is the court injunction a
278.
by andylei 14y ago
for those that don't understand the implications of this: the runyons claim that the seeds got there accidentally, and imply that they had no knowledge of the seeds' origins. given that they also sprayed Roundup on their crops, the claim j
279.
by andylei 14y ago
>> Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran. you know, its possible that the US, Israel, AND Iran are all doing bad things. just because Iran is not being condemned by a some media organizations does not mean it has any mea
280.
by andylei 14y ago
that is not the natural pythonic syntax. for concatenating lists, "+" is standard
281.
by andylei 14y ago
if you want to append to fronts and backs of lists, you should use deque: http://docs.python.org/library/collections.html#collections....
282.
by andylei 14y ago
i use it all the time. mostly to loop over n things at the same time: for a, b in zip(list_a, list_b): print a + b
283.
by andylei 15y ago
which might be true except for > (2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed also, you say &#6
284.
by andylei 15y ago
the scheme you're describing is no different than the continuous case. whoever came in first gets filled first. it doesn't matter if matching happens at a set interval, getting into the book first still matters, and HFT continuous as usual
285.
by andylei 15y ago
> financial markets aid in allocating capital for real world investment. this is only one purpose of financial markets. the other purpose is to transfer risk. any capital that you hold is subject to risks, and as a capital owner, you re
286.
by andylei 15y ago
> why we should build a system that enables HFT to be profitable. because HFT's are more efficient. paying a guy to make a market in one stock is expensive. paying for a computer to do it is cheap. when the market maker's costs are lowe
287.
by andylei 15y ago
again, what you are saying is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument no one thinks that not being able to charge money = no apps. the argument is over whether not being able to charge money = less apps.
288.
by andylei 15y ago
my point is still the same. the question is not how people consume apps, its how many of those apps are produced.
289.
by andylei 15y ago
you're logical reasoning is incredibly flawed. please stop arguing by way of pleading obviousness ("OMG ARE YOU SERIOUS, MY ARGUMENT IS SO OBVIOUS THAT I WONT EVEN MAKE IT!!!11") > What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for thei
290.
by andylei 15y ago
you're totally missing the point. the question is whether the ability to charge money incentivizes programmers to produce code. androsynth argues that the app store shows that it does. there are hundreds if not thousands of apps that would
291.
by andylei 15y ago
> useful if you're not on HN all the time i think that's the opposite of this guy's problem
292.
by andylei 15y ago
> I see the explosive growth in interconnections driven primarily by the Internet as something that, if ignored, can lead to dangerous situations > Unfortunately, as the world has grown less stable the author implies that super conn
293.
by andylei 15y ago
if the market cap of the company fell below the cash (net of debt obligations) of that company, the investors could liquidate the company, take the cash, and make a profit. thus, it's pretty atypically for market cap to dip below asset valu
294.
by andylei 15y ago
> dividends signal to the market that you have no better way to spend your money than just giving it back to investors to spend elsewhere this is exactly what they're trying to signal because its true. what's wrong with that? they've b
295.
by andylei 15y ago
http://www.thepimanifesto.com/
296.
by andylei 15y ago
i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries
297.
by andylei 15y ago
> So that's it? not really. he gets to appeal. > If a judge believes it, then it must be true! who else do you expect to enforce laws? the better question is, do you know anything about british law? why do you think your interpret
298.
by andylei 15y ago
> a person that did not break UK law the judge believes he broke UK law. from the telegraph article: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British l
299.
by andylei 15y ago
that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law > However, Judge Purdy reject
300.
by andylei 15y ago
> That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial if "they" refers to the prosecution: well, i sure hope that the prosecution believes he is guilty before a trial starts. i think the alternative is that the prosecution prosecutes

More ›