Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Low-Latency Network Shaves Milliseconds from UK-Asia Traffic

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the first-blade-just-surprises-the-milliseconds dept.

Network 157

New York's had its turn; now, an anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from eWeek Europe: "Financial traders and law firms are set to benefit from a new low-latency network between London and Hong Kong, which can conduct data on a round trip from Europe to Asia in around 176 milliseconds. The cable network, run by UK-based trading technology company BSO Network Solutions, has been in place for some time, but previously had to route around large parts of Russia, due to difficulties laying fibre in that country. However, a new lower latency and higher availability 'Transit Mongolia' connection has helped to reduce the time of a round trip by more than 20 milliseconds during the last 12 months."

cancel ×

157 comments

if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505554)

best to set up an office and park your staff across the street from the exchange.
hint: the rent for an office is far cheaper than using this connection 24 x 7.
FYI: law firms will not be helped by this.

Offensive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505578)

From the article:

"The idea is so simple, my grandmother could have come up with it"

As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist and C programmer of 20+ years I find this offensive. You would never hear this said about a grandfather.

Re:Offensive (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505682)

I find this offensive

You offend too easily. It's a common phrase, like saying "everyman" or "Joe the plumber".

Re:Offensive (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505800)

Or Joe Sixpack... I dont have a sixpack... I have a keg, jerk!

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506486)

YHBT. HAND.

Re:Offensive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505686)

Niggers speak this kind of pidgin that brainwashed liberal idiots like to call "ebonics". They pretend it is another dialect and not a low-class, gutter, illiterate bastardization of American English. Thats funny. You realize that no other racial or ethnic group still has a discernable "accent" after 3 natural-born generations? In 200+ years how many generations of negroes has there been in America? Oh and get this. It's not just American blacks. In Spanish-speaking countries the niggers don't speak correct Spanish either and have also been there for many generations. They're just stupid and less capable. Why not admit it?

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505946)

So what you're saying is, preserving any national identity that isn't yours is stupid? Your hateful, redneck bullshit is what should have been bred out.

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506012)

By Black men...

Re:Offensive (1)

johnmorganjr (960148) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506064)

Are you really so ignorant? Well yes you are in one way, you made a moronic and hateful post like you did yet you were smart enough not to log in so the whole world could see who you are. I think slashdot should do away with all anonymous posting to keep the true trolls out of here and let the back wood ass rednecks show who they really are. Personally I find what you said sick and offensive, maybe you should go post on kluklux.com or wherever the hell people like you spout off at the mouth.

Re:Offensive (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505724)

From the article:

"The idea is so simple, my grandmother could have come up with it"

As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist and C programmer of 20+ years I find this offensive. You would never hear this said about a grandfather.

The idea isn't THAT simple.

Re:Offensive (1)

David Thomas (2469740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505836)

You aren't the author's grandmother. The article says 'my grandmother' not 'a grandmother'.

Re:Offensive (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506160)

I wonder if said grandmother is irked by all this mileage as a rhetorical device.

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505930)

Nobody cares.

Re:Offensive (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505960)

yea boo hoo you state this horseshit every chance you get, obiously your not busy enough with your special grandchilderen or your awesome career so STFU already you bleeding heart

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

LilBlackKittie (179799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505584)

Traders who make money through "arbitrage" need access to more than one exchange — they're making money off the price differences of securities on each. They justify this as being beneficial to the market, because they're making prices equal across the world. Guess it's just coincidence that it's beneficial to their bottom line too, eh?

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505690)

because they're making prices equal across the world.

They also improve liquidity.

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506202)

But are they vacuuming up all the gains?

I have a question that may or may not be related. I keep asking but haven't heard a good answer.

  1. 1) Although many people own a little stock, most equities are owned by just 1% of the population [businessinsider.com] . The bottom 50% owns 0.5%.
  2. 2) Stocks went down overall in the 2000's [simplestockinvesting.com] .
  3. 3) And yet, wealth inequality grew [blogspot.com] during the 2000's; the rich continued to get richer while everybody else got poorer.

How is that possible? Why hasn't the weakness of the stock market and real estate leveled the distribution of wealth? If high-frequency trading, or insider trading, or anything "unfair" has happened on a large scale, it should be detectable because the distribution of returns should be more skewed - that is, the best should be beating the market by a wider margin than before. Are they?

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (4, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506640)

It's possible that HFT is contributing to it to some small extent, but I would think that other factors would have more to do with it. For one thing, the super rich have highly diverse investments. They own stocks, but also government bonds, corporate bonds, land, commodities, etc. It is very rare that all of those things go down together, and in fact usually when one of them goes down another goes up. They also have a bunch of high-priced investment advisers whose entire job it is to make sure they aren't on the losing side of the deal and that if they might be then it's properly hedged.

On top of that, a lot of these people outright own a large private company, and a lot of those companies will regularly beat the market because they're run by the owners rather than officers overly focused on quarterly profits and afflicted with the principle-agent problem.

The thing that concerns me about HFT is that it's quite possibly a significant cause for why the stock market is doing so poorly. Think about it: If the HFTers shave a penny or so per share off of each trade between exchanges, future prospective buyers will be willing to pay that much less for their shares, because they know that when they ultimately sell them they'll suffer the same loss again to the HFTers. In consequence the seller is obligated to lower the price by that small pittance per share in order to make the trade, which sets the new market price for the stock. The value of the stock will continue to go down until it accounts for the amount of value the HFTers remove over the period of time that the average investor holds the stock.

The more the HFTers make over a given period of time, the less the stock is worth to "real" investors. More to the point, if the "true" value of the company does not increase faster than the speed at which HFTers remove value from stockholders through arbitrage, the value (and therefore stock price) of the company will continue slowly falling indefinitely, because no one will want to buy shares that will post-arbitrage be worth less than they paid for them. (In practice what will happen is that the value will fall until the only remaining investors holding the stock will be long-term investors, who reduce the value removed by HFTers because they no longer have a sufficient volume of trading to arbitrage, and so the stock will stabilize at a non-zero price where the value of the company is increasing faster than the arbitrage removes, but at a much lower value than it would be absent HFT.)

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506962)

liquidity and equalizing the prices across different exchanges are admittedly benefits of arbitrage. Yet doing it in millisecond is not only pointless but benefits only some of the agents in the trade. Then again speeding up the networks is a good thing only this purpose is at least doubtful. For the purpose of arbitrage I think trading every minute is good enough. Real world and real economy is not changing that fast at least we humans do not perceive it so. Already the fact that we talk about real economy and the rest (i.e finance world) is telling.

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37507152)

Doing it in milliseconds rather than a minute reduces the risk for the trader.

Buying some stock in Asia, and selling it a minute later in New York carries a much bigger risk than selling it 0.1 seconds later. A minute may seem short to you, but when you spend all day doing those trades, a window of a minute means 600 times the risk of a 100 millisecond window that the price of the stock will change.

To offset this 600x bigger risk, the trader needs to have bigger profit margins on the trade as an insurance, which means a bigger price difference between global markets, which means that the average investor will get a worse price on their stock transaction.

Faster trading therefore benefits the real world and real economy.

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506132)

Great, all we need is a faster way to orchestrate a market crash.

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506556)

No, it's not a coincidence. A lot of people that are producing things that are beneficial to others are contributing to their own bottom line when doing so. In fact, most people do exactly that.

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505592)

Sure but each office can only be across the street from ONE exchange.

Currencies, commodities and some shares are traded on multiple markets. If you own the first computer to spot a difference in price between the same item in different markets then you can make money by making a buy in one market and an equivilent sell in another. The faster you can exchange data the lower the risk that someone else will get there first.

Re:if you have to use this youre doing it wrong. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37507168)

Yes, all very well thought out investments that will help the companies and economy grow strong for the long term.
This kind of split-second trading has to stop.

lets talk about... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505562)

We can talk about how scumbags are ruining the market again...

Re:lets talk about... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506098)

lets trade faster and faster with micro sums of money and waste ultra low latency networks for no reason... What's next, wasting massive amounts of electricity to to generate fake money? idiots....

Re:lets talk about... (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506624)

man where are modpoints when you need'em !!

Solution (1)

Mateorabi (108522) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506236)

When are they going to learn and force all trades to happen in bins. I.e. all trades arriving within each X seconds (or even some reasonable fraction) window get treated the same. The window being well-known and the same for all traders. That would put an end to most of this zero-sum gamesmanship trying to beat/trick/manipulate the other guy's trading algorithm and jump ahead of normal Joe Shmoes who can't afford to get a fat/fast pipe within uS of the trading network.

Oh, wait, the exchanges are making money by charging for this unequal access? Nevermind.

Re:Solution (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506390)

Lets talk more about how corrupt lobbiest from these companies can buy off any laws and stop any attempt to safeguard the market.

If I were the CEO of BSO I would hire the best lobbiest money could buy as in this particular climate it is not unreasonable for lawmakers to prevent me from making money.

You can't win since these trading firms own 75% of the worlds money! You say the rich own it right? Well, where do the rich keep it? Not under their matresses but to these guys who then use the money for private jets and lobbying.

I do wonder what would happen if many people took back all their money at once? We know banks would go out of business but what about financial institutions? Do they take more than what owe gambling or paying bonuses? I do wonder

Re:Solution (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506792)

Unless it was the wealthiest 1% of us, not very much...

Re:Solution (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506666)

There is no point. Your solution would cost more money than the margin currently collected by arbitrage specialists. Since the latter are competing amongst each other, the margins are always under pressure.

Joe Schmo just wants to buy a share of Shell, and would rather pay $61.33 on a US market, through his own broker, than to open up an account in London, quickly exchange some dollars for pounds, and buy it there for $61.31 before the price goes up. It's just too much hassle and risk, and extra fees.

Now comes in the arbitrage specialist. buys the share in London for $61.31 for the instant it is available, and re-sells that same share in New York for $61.32 milliseconds later. Joe Schmo can then take advantage of that. Instead of $61.33, he's now paying $61.32, but without all the hassle and risk of doing the trade himself.

Now, if you're going to enforce limits on what the arbitrage trader can do, Joe Schmo will have no choice, and buy the share locally for $61.33 instead.

Re:Solution (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37507012)

The following does not make it cheaper for Joe:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html [nytimes.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html [nytimes.com]

And it happens a lot. There were some that had very long "winning streaks" (months?), which is impossible for normal traders. It's basically two classes of traders.

The ones in the right class get their trades rolled back if "stuff happens".

The ones who aren't in the right class get prosecuted for winning: http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/security/3244186/norwegian-traders-convicted-for-outsmarting-us-stock-broker-algorithm/ [computerworlduk.com]

Re:Solution (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37507132)

Of course, that's a form of front running, which is illegal. In itself it has nothing to do with high speed trading, just like your other examples of fraud and corruption. No doubt that these things are happening in the stock market, just like they are happening anywhere else. That's why these things are illegal.

Re:lets talk about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506280)

Perhaps minimum hold times along with random delays and a lottery for bids that come in within a given time interval?

Re:lets talk about... (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506628)

nah, just tax the profits to the death when holding time 1 month

Re:lets talk about... (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506630)

that should have read "less than"

Putting those neutrinos to work! (5, Funny)

MMORG (311325) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505564)

Putting those FTL neutrinos to work, eh? Good job on the time-to-market, guys!

Re:Putting those neutrinos to work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505622)

Law firms?

Re:Putting those neutrinos to work! (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505914)

The original time-to-market was about 70 years, but they then used the FTL network to send the plans back to the present day. They're rolling it out in 20 ms increments to maximize profits.

Normal Neutrinos (3, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505956)

You could do this with normal neutrinos - they's travel through the planet, not around it. However your receiver will be a bit on the large side. If they had FTL neutrinos they could do far better: they could receive the signal before they send it!

Re:Normal Neutrinos (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506296)

But could you make them [neutrinos] even faster? Imagine this: FTL neutrinos used for communication. The order message is sent, but is received by the exchange before it is sent. The ``investor'' then observes the result, and crafts the order accordingly and sends it. The perfect plan! Think of all the ``liquidity'' it could create!

It is good therefore it is evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505568)

It makes market more efficient therefore it is evil.
It makes money therefore it is evil.

Re:It is good therefore it is evil (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505858)

It makes market more efficient therefore it is evil.
It makes money therefore it is evil.

You're an idiot therefore you think you're clever.

Re:It is good therefore it is evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505886)

You think you're clever, therefore you're an idiot.

GET MORE THAN THAT FREE (Using HOSTS files) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505580)

By far, & so can anyone else in 2 ways:

1.) Blocking out adbanners (which have been known to serve up malware many times in the past 7++ yrs. or more, no less)

&

2.) Hardcoding your favorite sites into it (so you avoid DNS lookups that take longer than 30-60ms or more to send back a host-domain name resolved to IP address, & also from possibly downed, OR "dns-poisoned" misdirected DNS servers)

Nice part is, it didn't cost ME "billions of dollars" to get a HELL OF A LOT MORE SPEED BACK FOR MY MONIES I PAY OUT TO BE ONLINE (as well as a hell of a lot better "layered security" to go with it), using HOSTS files...

APK

P.S.=> And, they're FREE, & data for them is as simple as pinging your fav. sites for their IP address (so you can LOCALLY "Self-Resolve" the host-domain name to IP address equation), & blocking adbanners has data widely available for it also (in addition to blocking out KNOWN bogus sites that serve up malware) for security too, such as this list of them:

http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt [malwaredomainlist.com]
http://www.malware.com.br/cgi/submit?action=list_hosts_win_0000 [malware.com.br]
http://mirror1.malwaredomains.com/files/ [malwaredomains.com]
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
http://www.malwareurl.com/ [malwareurl.com]
https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/ [safer-networking.org]

By this point in time, since 1997 with lists of my own? I have 1.6++ million bogus sites/servers/hosts-domains, adbanner servers, & far more that's "not good for your speed OR security online" blocked-out, & my DSL connection runs MORE like a GOOD CABLE CONNECTION instead for websurfing, easily!

... apk

Re:GET MORE THAN THAT FREE (Using HOSTS files) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505636)

Man dude, while your advice may be pertinent to somebody visiting websites, this is a very different communication going on, with no web browser involved at all.

Oh I'll agree with you, 110% (no argument here) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505752)

However - What I am stating is there's MORE SPEED (and security to boot as a bonus/side effect) out there for "COMMON-MAN END USERS" and even companies, for free...

(Heck with traders, the root of ALL EVIL imo, IS THE STOCK MARKETS).

APK

P.S.=> And, I do honestly MEAN that last part... apk

Re:Oh I'll agree with you, 110% (no argument here) (1)

M.Kristopeit84 (2469800) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506314)

yes creating a market for goods in the name of supply and demand is evil

your an idiot

Other things gain too (programs, see inside) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505828)

Ok, 1st of all: U missed my P.S. section (where I noted @ the very end websurfing's the "general gain" & per YOUR point, for MOST FOLKS... but, other things gain too, see below...).

E.G./I.E.-> Anytime you have to "resolve" a HOST-DOMAIN name to an IP Address (& a lot more than websurfing does that)? "Hardcoded hosts-domains" in your HOSTS gain.

For instance, I use Opera - it has a tool in it called SiteCheck (that uses a security service to check against bogus/bad domains/hosts online) - it's "hardcoded" in my HOSTS file, this gains in Opera as well (& it's NOT a site I visit, for instance).

Even programs that might depend on IP communications for data would also, think about it...

For example, the PyThon system I use to populate my HOSTS file here "automagically" every 15 minutes from those sources I listed? Each source is HARDCODED too, meaning I call & reach them faster... So, see my point on this also??

APK

Re:Other things gain too (programs, see inside) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505874)

Yeah, they aren't using DNS, possibly not even TCP/IP, so your advice is completely useless to them as well.

I'm sorry, but you're talking about something that has NOTHING to do with the circumstances here. It's just you ranting. Like Loud Howard.

You're probably going to get more people to ignore you just because of that.

A python program I wrote is now, & industry do (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505902)

It like MAD my man, look @ any default ports lists & search DB middlewares' default port #'s... See, so would any program that uses hosts-domain names in its code (& they do, not just IP addies, because companies reassign servers & ranges for security)...

Yes, I do go FASTER in it in my now locally running as we speak & continuously here nonstop 24x7 Python code for building my HOSTS file automagically for me!

Just because the hosts-domains & URLS my local Python program alone hits are hardcoded in my HOSTS file (which is on an TRUE SSD, Gigabyte IRAM 4gb DDR2 RAM unit that also has the data cached well by system diskcaches)... zero seek/access alone vs. remote DNS seek, query, return data runs...

APK

P.S.=> In my other posts, I go into how I was using Client Server database programs professionally since 1995 via their middlewares for remote online communique in fact, online over the public internet (30 or so by now "Enterprise Class" systems & their middlewares use tons of ports online that could gain the same way also via HOSTS files hardcodes of hosts-domains names for faster local resolutions etc.)... Trust me, a lot more than HTML & the web are "online" (look @ any "default ports list" & you'll see what I mean)... apk

Re:A python program I wrote is now, & industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506054)

You go into how you're a moron, who has no idea how stupid you're coming across to everybody else.

There's a reason why you're being buried at -1. And that's because you can't be modded down to -5 as you deserve.

Nobody cares what shit you do, if you can't relate to other people in any kind of terms, but instead come across as somebody who just yells and rants about nonsense, you're not going to get anything except ignored.

Notice how I don't give a crap about you, but I figure Jesus wants me to heal even the social lepers who know not what they do.

Re:GET MORE THAN THAT FREE (Using HOSTS files) (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505652)

Anonymous is right....
Someone bump up parent post...

Thanks, Ken Broadfoot... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505804)

You're a guy that obviously does/uses HOSTS files for a "Free BOOST" to online speed in websurfing especially, that works like "no tomorrow"... Good technique on YOUR end also!

Nothing like getting a FREE "turbo-charger" on your online connection, right?

APK

P.S.=> I also think the other fellow that replied missed my "P.S." section's ending, where I specifically note that "websurfing" (HTML communique via a webbrowser in other words) gains the MOST typically, for most folks online...

... apk

Re:GET MORE THAN THAT FREE (Using HOSTS files) (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505838)

the internet the web. The guys in the story are certainly not doing web stuff.
nice rant though.

As do I (programmatically online for decades) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505890)

Via programming, database-wise (client-server largely since 1995 online professionally) that travels over the public internet, & yes, has to resolve out domain-hosts names + travels over various ports online... middleware too!

For example, some defaults for online communications as well as "internal/local LAN":

SQLServer = 1433/1434, MySQL = 3306, DB/2 + others too, & those are just defaults ports, yes, that could be changed, mind you + for instance do more...

E.G.-> Look @ what can be done with Oracle products here -> Oracle = http://www.red-database-security.com/whitepaper/oracle_default_ports.html [red-databa...curity.com]

Fact is - A lot of that today gets done by SQL online via websites/webservers in communication with HTML & browsers, etc./et al but, my point's to show CUSTOM PROGRAMS HAVE USED THE PUBLIC NET FOR AGES TOO... & not just HTML & database access for they - banks even use it!).

APK

P.S.=> In fact? Heh - I have such a program I've written up here running right now, continuously, every 15 minutes written in PyThon 2.7x that hits sites, files, webpages too on a couple, to fill the very HOSTS file I speak of here... & it's not a browser, but it has the sites it actually goes to HARDCODED in my HOSTS file, which means no hosts-domain name resolution time is ever taken to talk to they that's slower than local access which is SSD zero ms practically fast here off a 4gb Gigabyte IRAM DDR-2 SSD that holds my HOSTS file + the files cached too!

(Thus - It's not SLOWER on that op either, because of HOSTS files having its sites hardcoded init, such as DNS servers are, & potentially downed or worse in THIS case, for security, DNS-poisoned/misdirected (but I use the "best in the business" on those, if not for hardcoded sites, in Norton DNS, Open DNS, Scrub IT DNS (all heavily security oriented vs. malware too))... apk

Re:As do I (programmatically online for decades) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505964)

I would advise a change of pusher, your speed is making you all tweaked ....

Re:GET MORE THAN THAT FREE (Using HOSTS files) (1)

M.Kristopeit84 (2469800) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506406)

blocking ads is stealing you theif and you don't even have the guts to log in and face me

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

cower in my shadow behind your stolen webpages some more, feeb

One step closer to their dream... (1)

hoytak (1148181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505594)

... of being able to outsource the high speed trading decisions to countries with lower labor costs, thus saving millions and increasing shareholder value.

Re:One step closer to their dream... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506110)

If you meant coding the machines that actually make the decisions, then yes.

Honestly, I don't know why somebody hasn't made a fucking fortune tricking the high speed trading machines. Remember a couple years ago when a story about the anniversary of a plane crash got picked up by Bloomberg and fed into the machines, crashing United's stock?

http://revealingerrors.com/google_news_ual

Why hasn't somebody applied SEO skills to a fake news story in order to manipulate a stock? Sure, SEC, yada yada - but I bet tracks could be covered.

Re:One step closer to their dream... (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506382)

There were a couple of guys in Sweden (IIRC) who figured out how a couple of the bots were trading, and then figured out how they could make money from that.

Guess what happened to them? If you guessed "retired on their fortune" then you guessed wrong. The right answer was that they were arrested and tried (can't recall the charge) for stepping on the big boys' toes.

Re:One step closer to their dream... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506422)

"Honestly, I don't know why somebody hasn't made a fucking fortune tricking the high speed trading machines."

They already have. I saw some graphs a year ago from Goldman Sachs which showed wiggles going upward from obvious pump and dump schemes. Basically they use the FTC to change the market price and as soon as it goes down the computers then buy the shares it was selling a few milliseconds earlier so the price goes back up, which in turn then sells it a few milliseconds after that and so on. It was weird, and as soon as it hit the news it mysteriously stopped. I wish I had the link to put up there.

That money came from Grandmas 401k and other traders.

The HFT computers do make a fortune doing this. The only way to outdo it is to have a faster supercomputer closer to the exchange that can buy more volume. Ever notice why Wall Street likes lower share prices under $75 a share and encourages companies like Google and Apple to split? So they can buy and sell millions of shares in the blink of an eye to manipulate the price. Apple it is too expensive to do that and Wall Street hates that!

Everyone loves to comment about the time the dow lost 1,000 points in a blink of an eye, where the computers were selling shares for .01 each. Hmm fat finger my ass. Someone tried to lower the price and shit went haywire when other HTF systems tried to underbid and also short the stocks so they would make money even if the price went down.

Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505630)

While it's very nice to have low-latency connections for lots of things, the current state of electronic trading means that even lower latency links are BAD for the world.

We're currently at a position where we give a HUGE advantage to those able to afford systems which can trade at lower latencies than others. Boiled down to it, that means the more wealth you have, the easier it is to create more wealth at the expense of those who don't have access to such super-fabulous systems and links. Basically, if I (some corp) can afford $100m in systems next to/in a trading center, I can make huge profits on arbitraging trades by even someone who has a $10m system slightly further away, and the ordinary human trader is screwed. None of that profit the mega-corp makes is economically useful activity (ask any economist) - they're simply leeches in the system, able to legally game it to their advantage (and, to everyone else' disadvantage, since trading is a zero-sum game).

From a societal standpoint, I see no benefit whatsoever at the current sub-10ms trading intervals, and the trend (which this new network link is a part of) to lower this even further for the privileged few bodes worse.

Sub-human-response-time trading is BAD for everyone except the trading floors (and their cronies, the investment banks), which live like leeches off of the financial system, sucking off profit from everyone else's trades (or, what do you think high-end arbitrage is?) It's also what leads us to those stupid market "storms" where automated systems jerk the trading around far faster than human can tell the computers are out-of-whack.

Bottom line - the tech this story promotes is great, but the primary purpose driving it isn't. We need to get a hold on the use of our technology.

-Erik

Re:Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505668)

I agree 100 percent... But what to do about it?
I would assume all this computer firepower will somehow level via market forces... BUT at the expense of little poor me and my e-trade account?
Seems to me the "knowing" of this could be used by someone who is smart... i.e. a "hacker" but again, how?

Re:Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505904)

A sales tax on each transaction might help...

Re:Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506086)

Im not sure the solution to "capitalism drives people to ridiculous measures to make penny profits" is "give the government more money". And practically speaking, it would mean that the government would have a vested interest in pushing this type of behavior.

Re:Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506376)

But what to do about it?

Transaction Tax. Higher taxes on income generated in this method.

Remember, TAXES are regressive and slow down economies. You tax something you slow the velocity of money. This is something the LIberals will never admit. For all its ills, Capitalism seeks efficiency of capital.

Of course, this news makes class warfare easier.

Re:Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505714)

We're currently at a position where we give a HUGE advantage to those able to afford systems which can trade at lower latencies than others.

If you are smart enough and motivated enough to put together a high-frequency trading algorithm that makes money, someone will give you a book. I don't think there is a big problem with really smart people with unused effective high-frequency trading algorithms sitting around.

If you're saying that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505756)

If you're saying that people should be allowed an advantage just because they discovered an advantage, you're flat wrong.

Re:If you're saying that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505950)

Didn't read the parent, did you.

Re:If you're saying that... (4, Insightful)

uncqual (836337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506282)

That's what EVERY stock market investor tries to do. Every time someone buys a stock, they believe they are taking advantage of whoever is selling it. Every time someone sells a stock, they believe they are taking advantage of whoever is buying it.

In the market, every bit of market research you do, every bit of data you buy, every moment you spend educating yourself, and every dollar/minute you spend analyzing the data is to find someone to take advantage of on the other side of every trade you make.

How is arbitrage any different - it's just a different avenue?

Re:Super-low latency trading Considered Bad... (1)

ponchietto (718083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37507018)

Now that you point it to me: not only we have an unfair system, we also wast a lot of smart people on that.

People that could do something useful (for the whole society) instead...

What I want on my wish list... (1)

Commontwist (2452418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505674)

Routers using quantum entanglement to transmit data over long distances. Whee!

Re:What I want on my wish list... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505712)

also it would solve the last mile issues...

dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505696)

isn't this a dupe?

Re:dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506220)

No, it's a tripe at least.

Unecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505702)

This is entirely unnecessary, I sit in Japan and get low enough ping to play quake 3 in London (70 lower).

It won't benefit the general population and low-latency/high-frequency trading should be illegal.

Let's lay this line through Africa shall we?

Why law firms? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505772)

I understand why financial institutions want the lower latency but what work could a law firm be doing that could in any way benefit from 20 ms faster packets?

Re:Why law firms? (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505822)

I understand why financial institutions want the lower latency but what work could a law firm be doing that could in any way benefit from 20 ms faster packets?

So they can sue faster!

Re:Why law firms? (0)

David Thomas (2469740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505872)

20ms here and 20ms there... time is money. Lots and lots of money. David Thomas - Fashion Photographer | www.fashion-photographer.org

Re:Why law firms? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506010)

Put your website plug in your signature rather than your post, unless you want to be modded down over and over.

Re:Why law firms? (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505982)

First to file patents?

Why care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505824)

Neat, some financial firm spent a lot of money making a private network used only for stock trades. This helps me or you how? It doesn't. I want news for nerds, not news for suits.

a good start (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505860)

let me know when they start shaving pussy. Christ, nobody likes a hairy snatch any more than they like hairy legs or hairy armpits. But some nice bald pussy, damn that's good.

COOL!!! no more waiting for Zing Lee - asian Pr0n (2)

gearloos (816828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505896)

Awesome indeed

wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505900)

great so now I can get spam 20ms faster.

Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (4, Interesting)

grimsnaggle (1320777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37505916)

Wolfram Alpha [wolframalpha.com] tells us that the direct path round trip by fiber would take 90 milliseconds. I'm rather impressed that it takes less than twice that to do the trip in reality, what with all of the additional routing delays and non-ideal paths that the data must take.

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506170)

Wolfram Alpha [wolframalpha.com] tells us that the direct path round trip by fiber would take 90 milliseconds. I'm rather impressed that it takes less than twice that to do the trip in reality, what with all of the additional routing delays and non-ideal paths that the data must take.

1) C is speed of light in vacuum, fiber is not vacuum, hence speed of light in this case is not necessarily C
2) No routing equipment can do calculations faster than C (unless you had the perfect parelel processor and OS), so you have packet, then A -> D conversion, then OSI model parsing, then protocol-specific filtering, then routing, then route-based filtering, then D -> A conversion, then send packet back out
3) Repeat step 2 for each hop
4) Last hop, repeat step 2, but add "request/response" processing there somewhere, such as ICMP ping for the most low-level test.

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506386)

1) You're the only one mentioning c (it's usually lower case), and I'm not sure why.
2) Having "perfect parelel [sic] processor and OS" are not necessary to gain a boost over a single processor. The overhead just needs to be particularly small in this case.

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506480)

The answer, obviously, is kuantum cantangueled routers.

(misspelling on purpose)

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506614)

Yes! Since quantum entanglement doesn't transfer information, maybe this type of trading would end. Maybe they'd catch on, though, and want a real method with low latency. Oh, I know! You could just distort the geometry of the earth by screwing around with the distribution of mass and energy, thereby modifying the metric tensor! Idiots--why lay cable when you can physics your way out of it?

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506888)

C is speed of light in vacuum, fiber is not vacuum, hence speed of light in this case is not necessarily

It looks like this GP used wolfram alpha's "light in fiber" travel time so he covered that one.

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506180)

repeaters, routers, non straight lines, multiple telcos, etc, etc, 176 is pretty good.

Re:Why does it take 176 milliseconds to do that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506420)

Why not just VPN into the destination country. Ping times like you're there since you're virtually on that network.

FIRST POST (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37505988)

Damn!
I need to get one of those new low-latency networks!

Great things in store (4, Funny)

bedouin (248624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506062)

I can't wait to get my spam and server bot attacks even faster than before.

subject (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506434)

Having just dealt with a fuckton of spam, I'm hoping routing around large chunks of Russia will be the rule from now on.

Sting (1)

SpaceCracker (939922) | more than 2 years ago | (#37506722)

Those 20ms shaved off the previous route could make for a super-fast sting operation against those using the old system.

Shaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37506770)

So what it has a long beard or something?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...