Yes, seeing a doctor really is a human right.

Does that mean we should bear the burden of your bad lifestyle choices? Well, we do today. Either those folks are in our emergency rooms, or they are lying on our streets. Either way, we all pay a cost.

It's not clear to me what you propose to do with them. Perhaps you should explain that a bit more clearly.

Hi AC

One would hope that a real scientific study would shed light on the situation. Unfortunately, this isn't it. It's a paper published by a Harvard student club and written by a gun industry lobbyist and a gun enthusiast. No balanced perspective that could lead to a real scientific paper here. The first refutation I found of the paper is certainly not peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal either, but makes a pretty good case that the statistics are cooked. It's here.

Please find a real scientific paper from a researcher without bias and then we can discuss it. This one doesn't quite meet the standard.

I'm sort of surprised at the amount of vitriol toward Eric that comes up unprompted (at least by me) just because I'm interviewed on Slashdot. I'm going to take the high road and not participate in it.

Actually, we would have had a much less expensive plan, but we couldn't get it by the conservatives. It's called single-payer, and I've used it in Canada. It has also been available to me in a dozen other countries that I've worked in, but fortunately I never needed it there. It works pretty well. So well indeed that most civilized countries have it.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand my presentation. Or that you understood it and can't accept it. I've thought about it for a very long time and I'm pretty sure of it.

I think you have to look at where the funding comes from for Republican and conservative causes. Don't just look at candidate funding, even election advertising has a lot of funding that isn't straight to the candidate.

Although there might be no shortage of self-employed Republicans, they don't really call the shots for the party. It's the very deep pockets who do.

Google must know by now how bad a light its broken permission system is putting on Android. I can't run half the android apps I want to run on any of my Android devices any more because of the permissions they want. And a lot of the ones that I intentionally do not upgrade no longer work. It's making my three android devices useless and almost worthless.

I'm flabbergasted that there are full-on idiots in the Google command chain who are unwilling to address such a severe and obvious problem. Truly flabbergasted. Has Google gone insane?

I've already stated but I will again... when the iPhone-6 comes out, I'll be moving over to it from my perfectly working but horribly insecure Motorola Razr. At least then I can browse my facebook account from my phone without it sucking up all the stuff I've tried so hard to keep partitioned off of it. As it stands now, I can't even run customized UIs on my Android because the g*d* program insists on advertising on my notifications screen, even though I bought the paid-for version.

At least with iOS I don't have to worry about all this in-the-face crap ruining the experience.

-Matt

Where do you get this nonsense from?

-Matt

The spreads are smaller because of computerized trading, *NOT* because of HFT. HFT itself, verses normal computerized trading and non-HFT computer trading, is not going to have a big impact on the spread. In fact, HFT algorithms themselves do not really work all that well if there is any significant spread. They require volume to operate... no volume, no HFT.

-Matt

I think reality tends to trump thought experiments. I don't dislike the 1-second auction idea, I think it would work quite well. But I disagree that IEX's ability to stop the HFTs cold is a fluke that will disappear as their volume goes up. Their reasoning is sound and obvious and immediately solves the biggest problem that money managers have these days when trying to buy or sell large amounts of stock. I don't see how volume changes the equation at all.

Besides, his paper does not appear to say what you summarized at least in regards to IEX. It simply states that IEX is solving one aspect of the problem. It's pretty easy to argue that the piece they are solving is the biggest piece of the pie. Personally speaking, I don't care about the aspects of HFT which only involve standard arbitrage.

In terms of HFT... it was obviously fraudulent from the day it started beind used. The SEC should have acted immediately and didn't. Companies were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure to get sub-millisecond transit improvements and they were lying to our faces talking about improving liquidity, magically, well in excess of the capital they actually had in play, when it was obvious that they were only exploiting flaws in the system.

It was a failure of the financial media as much as it was a failure of the SEC, but the SEC *should* have acted immediately and they didn't. And the result is a major loss of trust in the mechanisms of the stock market to the point where many retail investors who didn't understand the low scale of the fraud exited the market and stayed out of the market when they should have stayed in. I'm not going to make excuses for those people, I certainly wasn't scared away, but the general public deserves better than what the media and the government has handed to them over the last ~6 years.

-Matt

What, you mean pensions that companies are unable to make good on? Sounds to me like they SHOULD be eliminated.

And you forgot the single biggest reason why poor people stay poor. It's a four-letter word. D.E.B.T. #1 reason. Not 'Jim Crow' laws, regulatory capture (huh?), the destruction of unions, or anything else. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder yet you don't know the #1 reason for why poor people stay poor?

-Matt

In fact, the biggest money maker for a high frequency trader *IS* front-running someone else's order. Other profits from HFT algorithms, such as simple arbitrage, are a lot lower than profits from front-running opportunities. I very much doubt that the infrastructure investments HFT firms have made would be worth doing without the front-running component, so it will be interesting to see what happens down the line.

The front-running is possible when the other person's order is placed on multiple exchanges but not delayed so it hits them all at the same time. If the order hits, say, the BATS exchange first and there is a 100ms delay before it hits, say, the NYSE, then HFT algorithms will see the order on BATS and will be able to front-run the order on the NYSE using their superior network connections to the NYSE to get ahead of the original order that is still in-transit to the NYSE.

-Matt

This might be a surprise to you, but it has already happened. The growth in dark pools is directly attributable to major investment managers exiting the public markets and doing their trading in the pools in order to avoid the HFTs and other shenanigans (both real and imagined). The public exchanges have lost a huge amount of business over the last few years... hoist by their own petard, so to speak. At least to a degree.

Insofar as regular investors go, HFT doesn't really have much of an effect so there's no reason to take our business elsewhere. Losing a penny here and there, when it happens at all, is nothing compared to what trading cost us even 10 years ago. Our trades are simply too small for the HFTs to be able to act on.

But if you are really worried, just use limit orders that are slightly outside the bid/ask range (i.e. so they don't fill instantly) and wait for the fill. Nobody can front-run a small order so making it public beforehand prevents the HFTs from being able to do anything with it. You have to be a bit patient, but that's all. (this advise does not apply to thinly-traded names, only to liquid names).

-Matt