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!

Neutrino-Powered Financial Trading In Our Future?

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the a-particle-accelerator-for-every-hedge-fund dept.

The Almighty Buck 275

An anonymous reader writes "In a new feature on the future of high-frequency trading, Wired suggests that neutrino-powered financial trading systems may be coming soon, which would enable extremely low-latency information to be transmitted directly through the center of the Earth between major financial exchanges. If finance becomes the killer app for neutrino communication technology, it may ultimately make Neutrino SETI feasible. Quoting: 'It is only a matter of time, perhaps a few decades, says Alexander Wissner-Gross, a Harvard physicist, before some hedge fund decides it needs a particle accelerator to generate neutrinos, and then everyone will want one. Yes, they travel slower than light, but they indisputably can tunnel through the earth, cutting thousands of miles off an intercontinental message. And just a few days before the Battle of the Quants, right before the bad news about faster-than-light neutrinos, researchers announced they had sent a message by neutrino from the Fermilab accelerator in Chicago to a detector a kilometer away. According to Dan Stancil of North Carolina State University, the signal traveled at "very close to" the speed of light. Unfortunately, the data rate was only about 0.1 bits per second, meaning it would be useless for much more than sending a yes/no signal. "With the right modulation scheme, this could be increased by at least one or two orders of magnitude," Stancil said, adding "I don’t know of a compelling commercial application." But we’ve all heard the (apocryphal) story that Thomas J. Watson of IBM predicted "a world market for maybe five computers."'"

cancel ×

275 comments

Nope Nope Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40882867)

Never will happen. too hard to detect don't care what anyone says.

Re:Nope Nope Nope (3, Insightful)

ThePeices (635180) | about 2 years ago | (#40882891)

Never will happen. too hard to detect don't care what anyone says.

Uh huh, and we couldnt go to the moon either.

Never will happen. too hard to do don't care what anyone says.

Did you put your fingers in your ears and scream NANANANANA when you finished saying that rubbish sentence?

Re:Nope Nope Nope (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40882963)

Do you understand how ignorant and stupid you are?

Re:Nope Nope Nope (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40882969)

You insensitive clod. Are you suggesting that going to the moon wasn't a hoax?

Re:Nope Nope Nope (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40883259)

Are you suggesting that it was a profitable financial enterprise?

Re:Nope Nope Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883297)

Uh, no. Why? If you have an opinion about the expense of space exploration how about simply offering it, rather than trying to troll?

Re:Nope Nope Nope (0, Flamebait)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40883415)

Well not weighing in on the hoax (it clearly was), I think the moon missions were quite profitable indeed if you look at the contractors involved. Not to mention whatever gains came from making the Soviets and Communism look stupid compared to good ol' Captalism and Freedom.

Give it time (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 2 years ago | (#40883723)

Are you suggesting that it was a profitable financial enterprise?

No, but neither was Christopher Columbus' first trip. It was what came after that was profitable. It took ~100 years for the first successful colonies and ~350 years after that to have the largest GDP in the world. The US landed on the moon 40 years ago so lets talk in ~400 years time about whether it was a profitable venture.

At what power are they going to send the neutrino? (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40882899)

If you send the neutrino on too weak a power it will face interferences from other neutrinos produced by natural radioactive decay and solar processes
 
But if you want to send your neutrino and to ensure people on the other side of the planet can receive it, you have to send it at least with a power of in the order of millions of electron-volts - that is a lot of juice we are talking about !!
 

Re:At what power are they going to send the neutri (2)

maugle (1369813) | about 2 years ago | (#40883241)

Not to mention, neutrinos created won't have any specific frequency like with radio and other wireless communications. That means no easy way to filter out everyone else's noise to get your signal. If neutrino communication actually works, it'll be interesting to see what happens when the level of communications hits the "fifty wireless routers in an apartment building" point.

Re:At what power are they going to send the neutri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883427)

Neutrino detectors can be built that can measure directionality and energy of the neutrino. You would only have to worry about someone else transmitting within ~100 km using the same process.

Re:At what power are they going to send the neutri (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 2 years ago | (#40883533)

And since they will all be trying to transmit from as close to the major stock exchanges as possible...

Re:At what power are they going to send the neutri (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#40883815)

So what? If high-frequency traders can steal even a fraction of a cent from the market for every electron-volt used they make out like the bandits they are. An eV is actually a tiny amount of energy - 1kWh = 22 billion billion MeV. There's room for lots of really hideous inefficiencies in there before you'll even notice your energy costs

Re:At what power are they going to send the neutri (1)

pwolk (912457) | about 2 years ago | (#40883983)

I hope that by the time this has been developed to assist high frequency trading, that a mandatory minimum time of ownership of stocks of -say- a few days has been established for all stock markets. High frequency trading is detrimental for society.

Energy != power (5, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 2 years ago | (#40883829)

If you send the neutrino on too weak a power it will face interferences from other neutrinos produced by natural radioactive decay and solar processes

First electron-volts measure energy. Power is energy per unit time i.e. joules per second. Energy is a property of each neutrino - a neutrino does not have a power. Power is a property of a beam of neutrinos and is the mean neutrino energy multiplied by the mean number of neutrinos emitted per second. Worse, your suggestion that neutrinos with millions of electron-volts of energy will be needed to avoid interference with radioactive decay could not be more wrong: radioactive decays emit neutrinos at MeV energies! MeV neutrinos will have very similar energies to those from natural radioactive decays!

But if you want to send your neutrino and to ensure people on the other side of the planet can receive it, you have to send it at least with a power of in the order of millions of electron-volts

Again you are confusing energy and power. There are two ways to detect neutrinos over background: beam intensity and energy. Accelerators generally produce neutrinos with GeV energies (billions of electron-volts). These have some background from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere but give more directional information when detected i.e. you can tell where they came from better than low energy neutrinos so you can greatly reduce any background. Alternatively, if you have enough beam power then you can modulate the beam intensity in the remote detector which will modulate the count rate - you just need to have enough neutrinos to dominate the background. Also you need to bury your detectors to avoid backgrounds from cosmic ray muons.

Yes, ok, too hard to detect... (0, Offtopic)

earls (1367951) | about 2 years ago | (#40882909)

...like the value of your opinion.

is it April first? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40882883)

nuf said

We need COMMUNISM (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#40882885)

Capitalism is crappola. READ MARX!!! viva la cuarta internacional

Hello slashdort. Maybe you don't agroie with my message above, but you can't deny that I am right and you are wrong. Because if ytou wutiuejt the buttfart is the butfort of the awesorme slashdort HELLO -- we need a REVOLUTION!!!!!! this is inSANE!

Thanks for reasding my commint, slashdort friends! I love all of you especially Laura!!!!

Re:We need COMMUNISM (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883037)

Two questions. Where do you get your crack, and how expensive is it?

Re:We need COMMUNISM (2)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883369)

The real question, what is his dealer cutting it with?

Re:We need COMMUNISM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883075)

Couldn't find a 24 hour pharmacy to renew your meds prescription, huh?

Da speediest way tooda Naboo (4, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40882915)

'tis goen through the planet core.

ugh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40882937)

morons will buy anything...

Who needs fast data rates? (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 2 years ago | (#40882979)

Who needs fast data rates? No need to send the entire stock exchange of information through this thing. If you can have the price information for two or three key stocks even a half second before everyone else I suspect you could make a killing. Pick a different stock every day, or a couple times a day. They say the throughput could be increased a couple levels right now with the right coding scheme? Give it five years and I bet they can get another order of magnitude out of that. 100 bits would be more than enough to send price change info for a couple of stocks.

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883005)

Uh, really? That's your position?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading [wikipedia.org]

While you're back there in 1983, buy some Apple stocks.

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (1, Informative)

hakey (1227664) | about 2 years ago | (#40883257)

Hong Kong to US is about 150ms latency using conventional technology verizon [verizonbusiness.com] . So taking your own example of needing 100 bits to transmit a useful message (I don't know if that is realistic), the message would need to be transmitted faster than 666bps just to break even with existing communications. Given the cost of neutrino detectors and the current state of technology it just doesn't seem likely.

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (2)

hakey (1227664) | about 2 years ago | (#40883371)

I forgot the latency through the earth which is about 42ms. So actually you would need to transmit at 100b / (150ms - 42ms) = 952bps just to break even.

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 2 years ago | (#40883315)

even less than that would be needed, watch a single stock, when it goes up more than X send a neutrino burst

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40883317)

One bit of information might be enough. Sell or don't sell.

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883349)

"One bit of information might be enough. Sell or don't sell."

Like the FaceBook stock, that went well.

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883367)

How the fuck do you reach that conclusion? No sell = 0 and sell = 1? With absolutely no way whatever to detect whether it's valid data?

Actually yeah, Knight would probably buy one of those...

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#40883657)

How the fuck do you reach that conclusion? No sell = 0 and sell = 1? With absolutely no way whatever to detect whether it's valid data?

Actually yeah, Knight would probably buy one of those...

It's the Texas Hold'em strategy of stock trading.

Quantities, limits, stop loss, ... that's old skool thinking. The new paradigm in trading is ALL or NOTHING.
Either you sell everything or you plow your entire bankroll into one stock, 0 or 1 my friend, black or white. :)

Re:Who needs fast data rates? (1)

sco08y (615665) | about 2 years ago | (#40883423)

One bit of information might be enough. Sell or don't sell.

It's usually buy, sell or hold, but really you want a specific number, which could be very detailed if you're doing microtransactions. And you probably need a few bits to identify which stock you're selling, and all this needs a carrier of some sort. The expensive part, though, is probably securing the transmission.

They still travel too slow (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40882991)

Neutrinos still only go at c
What we need is tachyon communication for stock trading

Re:They still travel too slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883217)

The problem with that idea is that tachyons can't be used to transmit information, as with any other superluminal phenomena. Now, if they could, that would open up a whole new can of stock market trading worms, being able to send present stock prices into the past. Part of me wants to see that happen for just one day, if for no other reason than to see what would happen to the stock market.

Re:They still travel too slow (4, Informative)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883525)

It also doesn't help that we haven't actually observed superluminal phenomena of any sort (tachyons, quantum teleportation, warp drives, etc). Something to keep in mind when discussing the wonders of tachyon communication.

Re:They still travel too slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883771)

It also doesn't help that we haven't actually observed superluminal phenomena of any sort (tachyons, quantum teleportation, warp drives, etc). Something to keep in mind when discussing the wonders of tachyon communication.

And don't forget to mention that humour exists, and evidentially, pretentiousness also....

Re:They still travel too slow (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#40883431)

That's true.

But by travelling straight through the earth instead of being bounced around it from satellite to satellite, the total distance is perhaps only a hundredth as far, and so the information can be thus relayed proportionally faster.

Re:They still travel too slow (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#40883851)

My god, you're brilliant! Lets get the only people today who have an immediate financial interest in FTL communications to fund the groundbreaking research needed for it. They'd finally do something useful for a change!

My money's still on quantum entangling as the mechanism though, as far as I've heard nobody has any reason to believe tachyons actually exist.

Depressing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883033)

Some of our highest technological achievements end up being used to do one of two things: manipulate capital markets, or blow people up. Expect a neutrino-powered civilian obliterator any day now.

Re:Depressing (4, Funny)

careysub (976506) | about 2 years ago | (#40883167)

You left out the third achievement upon which the world's greatest minds are now focused: getting you to click on ads.

Re:Depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883625)

If only they could prolong my erection or make it larger...

Re:Depressing (2)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#40883757)

I dunno, some of those online-game ads seem to have an effect on me there...

Low latency? (1)

zblack_eagle (971870) | about 2 years ago | (#40883047)

It's still higher than that of within the same building or block as the exchange.

Unless the trading exchange is located at the centre of the Earth. Now there's an idea...

Re:Low latency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883161)

It'll take forever to transmit a packet. So a 64 bytes packet will take 640 seconds at 0.1 bit/sec just to be sent. Even send a packet the old way on the slowest path would have been faster.

Detection tank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883063)

Aren't we talking about gigantic scintillation detection tanks here?!

Re:Detection tank (1)

physburn (1095481) | about 2 years ago | (#40883871)

Yes, even for a powerful, directed beam of neutrinos, it big tanks of water, a photomultiplier tubes to detect.

Larry Ellison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883065)

Should be a matter of months before LE decides that HFT is the new America's Cup.

Good Knight! (2)

hawks5999 (588198) | about 2 years ago | (#40883067)

What a Knightmare!

Re:Good Knight! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883147)

Yeah, we still havent learned yet.

Obviously the solution is to be able to fuckup EVEN FASTER!

I find this depressing (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#40883073)

I find it depressing for some reason, that we would develop a technology specifically so a few guys will be able to trade stocks .0000001 second faster.

Re:I find this depressing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883287)

You're looking at this the wrong way. A few guys want to trade stocks .0000001 seconds faster, so they might pay scientists to do it and make cool technology in the process.

I find this enlarging. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883325)

No more depressing than all the energy and technology we develop to make a guy's dick bigger, and he'll still get turned down.

Re:I find this enlarging. (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#40883703)

No more depressing than all the energy and technology we develop to make a guy's dick bigger, and he'll still get turned down.

That's because women are competitive goods. Regardless of how many big dicks there are, there are still the same number of women.
If every guy has the same access to a big dick, then it offers no competitive advantage, it just levels the playing field.

What we should be focusing on is sex androids! The Japanese already have a head start. :)

Re:I find this enlarging. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883805)

It doesn't matter how big your dick is if you don't have enough money to provide for your family. By crushing the middle class and the ability for the average guy to make a living, it just reduced the pool of guys who can compete for the women. Sometimes it seems it isn't just about getting rich, but making sure no one else can get by.

Re:I find this depressing (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#40883381)

Someone has to develop it. It ain't gonna come out of pure research. If we're being robbed blind by these fuckers, the least they can do is develop advanced communications systems that the rest of us can use.

Re:I find this depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883411)

it's for comments like this that slashdot needs a Facebook style like button rather than its pisspoor moderation system.

Re:I find this depressing (5, Insightful)

dabblah (18703) | about 2 years ago | (#40883543)

It's worse than depressing. There is no socially redeeming value to high frequency trading. At best the practice steals a small amount of value from any affected fundamental (or non high speed technical for that matter...) trade. At worst, it may have caused the flash crash or be able to trigger a similar event.

If we as a world collectively had reasonable securities laws, the idea of high frequency trading would soon become moot. For the right to host the capital markets, the exchanges should be required to be neutral to latency, and certainly not co-host high frequency trading with the exchange computer systems. Also, a very small Pigovian tax on financial transactions would clean up a lot of undesirable activity in the securities markets, this included, while being a source of revenue proximate to provision of a societal good (that being regulation for efficiency sake of the capital markets).

Re:I find this depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883601)

Probably because you're a moron.

Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (1)

Kyune (948300) | about 2 years ago | (#40883103)

In my limited understanding I would expect the energy/maintenance needs of such a network be a tremendous drain on resources over time for potentially no benefit? I suppose the technology that comes out of the consequential research and development may better serve humanity, but using it expressly for financial purposes sounds like a misadventure.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883199)

This might be useful for communication to submarines or other places (e.g. to the back side of the moon) that are hard to reach the normal means.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40883343)

Technology doesn't get developed because it would be good for everybody to have. It gets developed because some joker thinks it will make him rich.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (2)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#40883497)

THIS IS WHAT AMERICAN PATRIOTS REALLY BELIEVE.

In reality, technology is developed by people who can convince companies to pay them for developing technologies for those companies first. However it never ever happened in the history of mankind that worthwhile technology stayed exclusive to companies where it was developed first.

This shit, of course, is not even a worthwhile technology, it's a way to waste massive amount of energy and space to game a system that should not be allowed to exist in the first place.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883619)

This shit, of course, is not even a worthwhile technology, it's a way to waste massive amount of energy and space to game a system that should not be allowed to exist in the first place.

What's the deal here? A cool technology and a valuable use for it. I'd have to say that in addition to the benefits we get from faster, more responsive markets, we have potential for some serious spin off. That seems good enough to justify the above stuff to me.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883583)

It gets developed because some joker thinks it will make him rich.

And those jokers are frequently right.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883481)

In my limited understanding I would expect the energy/maintenance needs of such a network be a tremendous drain on resources over time for potentially no benefit?

And in your limited understanding it could also be great benefit. That's pretty much what an "expensive gamble" is.

I suppose the technology that comes out of the consequential research and development may better serve humanity, but using it expressly for financial purposes sounds like a misadventure.

Why? I really don't get this. It could be an opportunity to get someone with deep pockets to pay for research into a wonderful technology and yet, there's all these people casting doubt on it not because of the viability of the technology, but because it's finance related.

The thing is, there is revenue in this from the financial side. And if things ever get that far, you end up with a neutrino communication system. That's good enough for me.

Re:Wouldn't this amount to an expensive gamble? (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 2 years ago | (#40883881)

a tremendous drain on resources over time for potentially no benefit

Well, isn't that exactly what Wall Street specializes in?

Personally I find all this HFT stuff asinine... (1)

aurashift (2037038) | about 2 years ago | (#40883139)

...but can I use it to get the first post on threads from the other side of the planet?

Eliminate High Frequency Trading (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#40883165)

Funnel all the orders through one old guy wearing green eye shades with a ledger book and a Marchant calculator [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Eliminate High Frequency Trading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883255)

Best suggestion yet.

HFT is a pox on society and serves absolutely no useful purpose other than making very rich people richer, faster.

10:31:01.00001 - yay, just bought 10,000,000 shares (leveraged, with non-existent money).
10:31:01.00002 - yay, took advantage of the blip ME buying 10,000,000 shares caused, sold 10,000,000 shares (profit, of real money)

Fraud, fraud, fraud. How the fuck do you justify it?

Banking. Biggest. Legalised. Fraud. Ever.

Re:Eliminate High Frequency Trading (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883567)

HFT is a pox on society and serves absolutely no useful purpose other than making very rich people richer, faster.

Which you had to admit was a useful purpose. My view is that if something has a useful purpose, even if I can't personally benefit from it, then that's good enough to justify it.

10:31:01.00001 - yay, just bought 10,000,000 shares (leveraged, with non-existent money).

10:31:01.00002 - yay, took advantage of the blip ME buying 10,000,000 shares caused, sold 10,000,000 shares (profit, of real money)

Don't see the problem. None of my orders would be affected. They're all limit orders and options.

Fraud, fraud, fraud. How the fuck do you justify it?

No fraud happened. Nothing was misrepresented.

And I justify it on the basis that a free world with people who are allowed to choose to do whatever they want is better than a world where we crush peoples' freedom over delusional bullshit like the above "fraud".

Re:Eliminate High Frequency Trading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883665)

The fraud is that HFT offers are placed out there for mere fractions of a second and then pulled back. They have NO INTENTION of executing the orders, which is fraud. They exist to sniff out pricing on other offers (ie. obtain information they should not have), then use that information to steal pennies here and there.

It's a rigged game that those in power are allowed to profit from, and the plebs exist to be fleeced.

Any honest person still in the stock market after knowing that this shit is going on is a fool who will soon be parted from their money.

Re:Eliminate High Frequency Trading (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883745)

The fraud is that HFT offers are placed out there for mere fractions of a second and then pulled back. They have NO INTENTION of executing the orders, which is fraud.

That's bad market design. No fraud involved.

It's a rigged game that those in power are allowed to profit from, and the plebs exist to be fleeced.

Nonsense. It's meant to fleece computer trading programs. Plebs aren't computer traders.

Any honest person still in the stock market after knowing that this shit is going on is a fool who will soon be parted from their money.

Nonsense again. You just don't trade in ways that are to their advantage. For normal traders, that means being very careful with market trades or stop loss orders, both which operate at the HFT level. Limit orders are immune to HFT.

1 corinthians 2: planning ahead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883177)

pity downwards sick companions defile irritate looker-on
hit her own described turning selves restraint motions
aright sighs stage raisedst travail inevitable wrong gotten
ample ungodlily haunt renewed soil cd touching wit Greenland
ascending kinds orator contemporary speaking despite IMPLIED
praying devout inordinate goading stealth acted station
sucking during rectify boils Cross orbs edition silent
weariness Preacher converted wretch balls clasp unlooked-for
prescribed rude deformities adapted Strength SupremerCourt
specimens planets -i Latinum who tending bepraised staggered
daughter-in-law

C:\Text\DARWIN.TXT

d, namely, that, though we find in
our geological formations many links between the species which now exist
and which formerly existed, we do not find infinitely numerous fine
transitional forms closely joining them all together. The sudden manner in
which several groups of species first appear in our European formations,
the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in
fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most
serious nature. We see this in the fact

Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883245)

Now the trading algorithms can lose money even faster!

over thinking (2)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#40883253)

Clearly this is why the financial industry is in such a constant state of crisis. They are basically dumb, believing what any says, as long it might make then a buck. The more stupid, outlandish, and gibberish compliant the idea is, the more they like it.

I mean really, if they wanted near zero latency communication, they should just come to me for some basic technology. For instance, a basic, yet expensive, path is telepaths. Right now we would simple takes twins or triplets or whatever, test them for basic ability, and then train them. Pay each 100K a year to be on staff for a few year, then replace then as needed. This would be a great job for someone right out of high school. For the longer term we would go to some country with low regulation and genetically engineer the telepaths. At first this would be just selective breeding and early training, but eventually we should have labs set up to create telepaths on demand. Pay for their room and board, keep them on for 10 years, then send them on their way with a couple million in trust.

A more expensive and lower bandwidth method would be quantum entanglement. Chang the spin on one particle, it's entangled particle will immediately be changed as well. A 8 bit system could be built, An alternating all up then all down could be sent as a metronome, then an STX, then a certain amount of datadata, then and ETX, then a check sequence, then an EOT. Speed would be limited on by how long one must hold a state for reading. The advantage here is that there is absolutely not latency.

You see, there are always simple solutions when one thinks about it.

Partcle man. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883261)

I predict quantum entanglement is a more viable basis for any future communications system.

Re:Partcle man. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883631)

You have to come up with a way for it to transmit information. That hasn't happened yet.

Neutrino-powered burning of virtual capital? (1)

zapyon (575974) | about 2 years ago | (#40883271)

Yeah, sure!

What do you think would have happened if those guys at Knight Capital had used this already? In 45 min they could have burned ALL the money in the world! Ouch! ...

Wait a minute, this might be a good thing after all ... go ahead, folks!

Absolutely disgusting. (3, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#40883341)

This is absolutely disgusting, and any society where such a thing is a feasible way of extracting profit, is completely morally bankrupt.

And we thought, nuclear war is the worst thing that can come from fundamental Physics research. Now nuclear war seeme to be a valid solution to the society that is run by financial companies who run DoS and man in the midle attack on all trade and production, to extract money from everyone.

Re:Absolutely disgusting. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883433)

A great, useful excuse for developing an awesome technology and you're "disgusted"?

Now nuclear war seeme to be a valid solution to the society that is run by financial companies who run DoS and man in the midle attack on all trade and production, to extract money from everyone.

I find it remarkable how so much of society doesn't have even a stone age level understanding of trade. You don't enter into a trade because you want to make some financial company rich. You do so to buy or sell something you want or need. As long as you get what you want for the price that you want, it doesn't matter what middle men or DoS gamers are on your market.

And well, that's how the stock market works. You buy what you want at the price you want. If you don't want unexpected behavior from certain types of orders which are relatively susceptible to HFT, particularly stop loss, then don't do them. Use limit orders and actual monitor your investments.

Re:Absolutely disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883509)

If we waited for a moral imperative to drive innovation we'd still be waiting for the wheel.

people pay these guys money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883647)

Many people pay the quick traders money, so the traders can try to make them money. I don't hear complaints about the people who pay traders. Maybe those people should play it safe and invest in safer investments, and avoid the commissions that finance this gambling. That would reduce 'morally bankrupt activity'.

Absolutely Disgusting Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883845)

Yeah, nuclear war is a perfectly "valid solution" to the problem. Thanks for your rational input.

Soon = "in 100 years" (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#40883353)

Look at the effort used in detecting them at this time. This is just a writer with some imagination but no understanding of the facts.

Re:Soon = "in 100 years" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883697)

It took less than 100 years to go from the invention of the automobile to man walking on the Moon. It's quite possible that it won't go anywhere within 100 years (electric cars, anyone?), but it's also possible that our grandchildren will think it's funny that we had to use electromagnetism to transmit information!

dom

ObBetteridge (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883365)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines

Should you post that stupid link every time there (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#40883515)

No, indeed...

The "future" of financial trading... (5, Insightful)

jmerlin (1010641) | about 2 years ago | (#40883461)

should involve regulations that limit the rate at which trades can be made or that put a cost on high-frequency trades such as to remove their profit incentives. It's an investment market, we don't need thieves grabbing mismatched buy/sell orders and sitting in the middle shaving pennies off transactions. You know all those movies where someone proposes "rounding" sub-penny transaction losses down to the nearest penny and adding them all to a bank account? Someone on Wall Street saw that and said "bro, we can totally do this lulz! Just give us a way to trade faster than anyone else, and we'll make BILLIONS!" How is this still legal? I mean by every definition this is theft. I, for one, don't want to see us trying to come up with technologies to help these billionaires continue robbing you, me, and everyone else.

Re:The "future" of financial trading... (0)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883667)

The "future" of financial trading should involve regulations that limit the rate at which trades can be made or that put a cost on high-frequency trades such as to remove their profit incentives.

That's really pathetic for a "future". I have a better solution. We just let them do whatever they're going to do and reap the technological benefits such as more capable computer systems and databases, faster communication systems, more sophisticated real time control systems, etc.

As to the alleged "theft", since it isn't actually happening (by any definition), there's nothing to complain about.

already a working replacement (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40883475)

It fails to state just how not good we are at detecting neutrinos. If all the matter across the interior of the planet doesn't stop/defelct the neutrino, some little foot long antenna or something isn't going to either. They're not nearly that easily detectable. Let's see...what do I know of that we have right now that already solves this problem? Oh yeah, entangled particles. I think the record is like 10 feet away from each other but if we can get them 15,000 miles away from each other, tada, a delay of 0. Nobody seems to have any explanation for why we can't move them farther away from each other but once we get that fixed, there isn't a whole lot more to it than that.

Re:already a working replacement (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 2 years ago | (#40883587)

Well, the whole "can't transmit information" via entangled particles is a bigger problem than distance records (which we know the answer to, that's mostly due to them interacting with their containment systems and thus leaving the singleton state.)

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40883549)

Really? Why wouldn't you lease some rackspace at the NYSE instead? They have that, and it's in demand because latency is in the microseconds. Why would you build a pair of neutrino guns, which is to say, GIGANTIC miles-long particle accelerators, and a pair of neutrino detectors, which is to say, GIGANTIC scintillators made out of heavy water and mineshafts, just so you could put a 1U server in Australia or some damn place?

Whoever posted this story, I hope you're happy, because we're all dumber for having read it.

Uh. Blue sky fail (1)

chaboud (231590) | about 2 years ago | (#40883713)

Entanglement communication is far more interesting. Spooky, distant, simultaneous communication? Yes please.

Just imagine courriers delivering what amounts to communication fuel. This is a bad sci fi novel waiting to happen.

Re:Uh. Blue sky fail (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#40883861)

Entanglement communication is far more interesting. Spooky, distant, simultaneous communication? Yes please.

Just a shame there's no actual communication involved, and no way to send information.

IMHO gravity neutrinos (2)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40883717)

I think there's more mileage to be had from gravity-based communication systems. For example, take the "Mach Lorentz Thruster". It's basically a capacitor that is oscillated back and forth very rapidly with synchronized cycles of charging and discharging.

The original reason for it was to generate a net thrust by charging the capacity pushing it in one direction, discharging it, and then pushing it back again. This generates a net force since a charged capacitor by relativity has slightly more mass than a discharged capacitor.

One side effect though is that if you already have a gravity signal of the appropriate frequency, then such an oscillating system can pick up that signal. In other words, the MLT can produce a gravity based signal and pick up a gravity based signal. All in theory, of course. But at least it's progressed to the point where one can generate detectable levels of thrust with it. One could probably generate the gravity signal merely by vibrating a massive weight at the right frequency.

Now one such MLT acts so I understand a lot like a dipole antenna. I think it should be possible to make a large phased array of these things and have an ability to detect gravity signals of a tuned frequency, more or less what would be wanted for communication. And it should have better gain by a very large amount (like pretty much everything else does) than a corresponding antenna for neutrinos.

Re:IMHO gravity neutrinos (1)

physburn (1095481) | about 2 years ago | (#40883853)

hmm, yes mass and energy are same thing, but that c squared factor means you don't get much gravity per Joule. How much energy have you got in one of those capacitors, yes the electricity moves fast, at the 1/3 c. But if you want a gravity of detectable quantities, i think you'd be better off wiggling a massive object quickly.

I call bs (1)

PhamTrinli (2700335) | about 2 years ago | (#40883889)

So with neutrinos you can send a very noisy signal through the earth. Ok fine. And the with a "different modulation" (i.e. Shannon coding) you can send a reliable signal. But Shannon coding always comes at the cost of latency. And the problem this is supposed to solve? Latency.

Someone is a fool (1)

dsgrntlxmply (610492) | about 2 years ago | (#40883987)

Either I don't understand the consequences of a neutrino:nucleon reaction cross-section on the order of 10^-43 m^2, or a technology writer is bafflegabbing.
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...