By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,846 Members | 1,191 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,846 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

rolling dice

P: n/a
Let's say I have m dice having n sides, such that n^m is not going to bust
int as a datatype. With m=4 and n=6, an outcome might be {2, 5, 1, 2}.
What is a good way to represent this in c so that I can check cases by brute
force? EC
Sep 30 '06
Share this Question
Share on Google+
101 Replies


P: n/a
Bill Reid wrote:
Not that it really matters here, but it wasn't just boring, it was also
insanely factually incorrect. I particularly enjoyed this ridiculous
statement:
>>NASDAQ's stock market (electronic transactions) caters to technology
firms
>>which don't usually pay dividends. Also, it doesn't allow the short
sales
>>of securities.

Take it from somebody who has shorted a LOT of NASDAQ stocks
over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting.
They even have a new list of stocks that can be shorted without
the short sale restriction (up-tick).

--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)
Oct 10 '06 #51

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:
[...]
>They have enough money to stop focusing on business, and start focusing
on
what they actually would like to do. Bill Gates gives millions (if not
billions) to charity every year.

If they're greedy enough to write non-portable code for the sake of non-
portable code, you'd wouldn't expect them to be giving money to
charity...

Bill Gates is not Microsoft. Bill Gates is an individual, who can do
whatever he likes with his own money. Microsoft is a business with a
fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Well, Ill be dipped in shit. Keith Java Beans Thompson saying that.

I've taken a look at the plans for Portland. Have a good time and do some
damage. N1170 BTW needs a slight revision. I've been thinking about fruit:
'pear' , 'orange' , apple[] . Cheers, Lane Straatman, aka the flying
dutchman
-------
_leroy
Oct 10 '06 #52

P: n/a
"Lane Straatman" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:
[...]
>>They have enough money to stop focusing on business, and start focusing
on
what they actually would like to do. Bill Gates gives millions (if not
billions) to charity every year.

If they're greedy enough to write non-portable code for the sake of non-
portable code, you'd wouldn't expect them to be giving money to
charity...

Bill Gates is not Microsoft. Bill Gates is an individual, who can do
whatever he likes with his own money. Microsoft is a business with a
fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Well, Ill be dipped in shit. Keith Java Beans Thompson saying that.
"Java Beans"? What in the world are you talking about?

My comment was intended *only* to correct Frederick Gotham's mistaken
statement that Bill Gates' contributions to charity are connected to
Microsoft. This whole discussion of Microsoft is completely off-topic
anyway.

[snip]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 10 '06 #53

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:q1********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
NASDAQ's stock market (electronic transactions) caters to technology
firms
which don't usually pay dividends. Also, it doesn't allow the short
sales
of securities.

Take it from somebody who has shorted a LOT of NASDAQ stocks
over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting.
"Over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting" could very well
be true, if it occurred after 2003 sometime. But, I believe what you're
referring to is "Intermarket Securities" or "19C3's". These are NYSE
registered, but can also be bought or sold through NASDAQ.
To think that some people read this sort of stuff for a living.

That was just a typical whacko uninformed Usenet rant.
NOBODY reads that sort of stuff for a living. If I got paid
every time I read a Holocaust denial, an Illuminati conspiracy
theory, et. al., on Usenet, I'D be richer than Bill Gates...
Unfortuantely, I programmed on a stock trading application for Fortune 500
brokerage for 3 years. I implemented securities laws to prevent brokers
from cheating clients (such as front running and other shenanigans). I also
programmed on various, now older, protocols such as ACES, SuperSOES, OATS,
and Nasdaq Quote and Data feeds. My post wasn't as "uninformed" as you
believe, although it could be very slightly out of date.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 13 '06 #54

P: n/a

Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eg**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:q1********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
NASDAQ's stock market (electronic transactions) caters to technology
firms
which don't usually pay dividends. Also, it doesn't allow the short
sales
of securities.
Take it from somebody who has shorted a LOT of NASDAQ stocks
over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting.
"Over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting" could very
well
be true, if it occurred after 2003 sometime.
Yes, and BEFORE 2003 too...dude, be aware you're about to
make me laugh out loud...
But, I believe what you're
referring to is "Intermarket Securities" or "19C3's". These are NYSE
registered, but can also be bought or sold through NASDAQ.
Nope, I'm referring to NASDAQ-listed stocks, period, not that small
subset of "Intermarket Securities"...
To think that some people read this sort of stuff for a living.
That was just a typical whacko uninformed Usenet rant.
NOBODY reads that sort of stuff for a living. If I got paid
every time I read a Holocaust denial, an Illuminati conspiracy
theory, et. al., on Usenet, I'D be richer than Bill Gates...
Unfortuantely, I programmed on a stock trading application for Fortune 500
brokerage for 3 years.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sorry, I warned you...this is great, I hardly ever get those types of
big belly laughs here, mostly just lip-chewing pedantry (and actual useful
information, occasionally!), but given MY life experiences this is just
TOO funny!!!
I implemented securities laws to prevent brokers
from cheating clients (such as front running and other shenanigans). I
also
programmed on various, now older, protocols such as ACES, SuperSOES, OATS,
and Nasdaq Quote and Data feeds.
Yeah, and I worked for a while for a company that was the leading
supplier of investment trading software to the industry, and almost every
day I was totally gob-smacked at how unimaginably uninformed most of
the "programmers" who worked there were about the actual operation
of markets they were seeking to "automate".

I'd be looking at some of their code that handled stock splits, and
ask, "What about reverse splits?" And they'd blink and ask "What's
a reverse split?"

That is, the VERY small subset of "programmers" (software
"engineers"?) who actually spoke enough English to understand
and respond to the question, but not so much that they lived in
that very special fantasy world in which no actual fact from
the universe outside of their freshman IntroCompSci could
enter their white American male "engineer" heads without
causing an eruption of cognitive dissonance like a geeky
Vesuvius (this was, of course, prior to "outsourcing", now
many of them are quite agreeable with my refusal to add
fries to my order)...
My post wasn't as "uninformed" as you
believe, although it could be very slightly out of date.
It was complete and total nonsense. It was just a malformed
attempt to "explain" why Microsoft stock is higher than YOU
think it should be. Just as you almost certainly did when you
performed your important life duty of "implementing securities
laws", you just manufactured all the facts related to security
trading out of your feverish imagination.

But given three years, I'm quite confident you managed to
get your 1800-line "securities law" program to compile, if not
to provide any type of useful result...

But it really doesn't matter...as I realized during my stint with
that company after literally decades of trading the markets as
that rarest of breeds known as an "individual investor", the
"investment" industry cares not one whit about securities laws
(except when RARELY enforced), the technicalities of stock
trading, or even actual stock prices. They're a SALES
organization, first, foremost, and almost totally...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 14 '06 #55

P: n/a
[off-topic drift here, but I am curious]

In article <oQ*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Bill Reid <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote:
>... I worked for a while for a company that was the leading supplier
of investment trading software to the industry, and almost every
day I was totally gob-smacked at how unimaginably uninformed most
of the "programmers" who worked there were about the actual operation
of markets they were seeking to "automate".

I'd be looking at some of their code that handled stock splits, and
ask, "What about reverse splits?" And they'd blink and ask "What's
a reverse split?"
I have a program I wrote for myself, some years ago, to assist in
doing the yearly Schedule D. It only does what I need [%], but at
some point I needed to handle splits. So I added input lines of
the form:

<date<securitysplit M for N

where M and N are any integer. Thus, it handles both forward and
reverse splits.

What I wonder is: how could one *fail* to handle reverse splits?
It is not as though there is any difference between "3 for 2" and,
say, "10 for 1". (Either way you could have to deal with fractional
shares. Mine just maintains the fraction, and it is up to the user
to deal with that by inserting a fractional sell if needed.)

[% Hence, it properly extracts and combines short- and long-term
capital gains and losses but not (yet) 5-year gains, and it always
works on the calendar year rather than arbitrary fiscal years. It
does not handle securities that morph upon a buyout or merger, or
change symbols, etc.]
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Oct 15 '06 #56

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Frederick Gotham said:
Malcolm posted:
typedef struct
{
int m;
int n;
int *roll; /* allocated dice with malloc */
} DICEROLL;

I strongly advocate the use of ALL CAPS for macros and for macros only.

Apart from the hypocrisy being shown here (you called Keith Thompson a
fascist for daring to criticise your style, and yet here you are,
criticising someone else's style), what you are overlooking is that there
is a large and influential code base which uses ALL CAPS for type names -
namely, the Win32 API. And in fact there is never any confusion, since type
names and macros are rarely if ever used in contexts where they might
conceivably be confused.
In general, I like to start all user defined types with a capital
and I prefer to use mixed case for the rest. I do this primarily to
avoid "visual" conflict with the compiler and OS provided types that
are all lowercase. All CAPS is okay for this but does cause a visual
conflict with macros so I would recommend (style wise not necessarily
code wise):

typedef struct
{
int m;
int n;
int *roll; /* allocated dice with malloc */
} DiceRoll;

This is similar to class naming styles in C++.

Oct 15 '06 #57

P: n/a

Chris Torek <no****@torek.netwrote in message
news:eg*********@news1.newsguy.com...
[off-topic drift here, but I am curious]

In article <oQ*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Bill Reid <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote:
... I worked for a while for a company that was the leading supplier
of investment trading software to the industry, and almost every
day I was totally gob-smacked at how unimaginably uninformed most
of the "programmers" who worked there were about the actual operation
of markets they were seeking to "automate".

I'd be looking at some of their code that handled stock splits, and
ask, "What about reverse splits?" And they'd blink and ask "What's
a reverse split?"

I have a program I wrote for myself, some years ago, to assist in
doing the yearly Schedule D. It only does what I need [%], but at
some point I needed to handle splits. So I added input lines of
the form:

<date<securitysplit M for N

where M and N are any integer. Thus, it handles both forward and
reverse splits.

What I wonder is: how could one *fail* to handle reverse splits?
You already failed by using integers!

Sometimes splits are declared in the form of "1.5 to 1". Of course,
that's "3 to 2", but only after you go through the process of MANUALLY
converting the actual split data to an integer representation.

Fine for your purposes MAYBE (I'm not going to rack my brain now
to try to remember any possible cases where even this wouldn't work),
but not acceptable when automatically handling a real-time data feed
of thousands of stocks...

My code, the stock splits are floats, since in many cases no matter
how the split is declared "officially", you're still going to have to allow
for a float cast in there somewhere to calculate the actual "after-split"
shares, prices, (and trading volumes, for my purposes).
It is not as though there is any difference between "3 for 2" and,
say, "10 for 1". (Either way you could have to deal with fractional
shares. Mine just maintains the fraction, and it is up to the user
to deal with that by inserting a fractional sell if needed.)
As I remember it (this was a few years back), he assumed all splits
were of the form "10 to 1", "5 to 1", "2 to 1", so as a "split_value" in
his code he just used what is essentially the numerator in the "split
fraction", and he used that integer number as a direct multiplier/divider
of shares/price, so his code was like "num_shares=num_shares*split_value"
and "price=price/split_value". He couldn't even handle FORWARD
splits properly in many cases.

How to handle splits at a simple conceptual level is pretty
straightforward IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE
OF HOW THE STOCK MARKET WORKS. The point of my
anecdote is that many, many, many "engineers" who work on
PROFESSIONAL trading software didn't have the first clue
about the topic, as we've just seen HERE again...

If you think this lack of knowledge had no impact on the released
software, think again. I've sat and watched the real-time "professional"
data feeds coming through with what were obviously GIGANTIC
errors that quite clearly the result of either clerical or programming
error. The funny thing is, the "professionals" DON"T CARE...their
business has nothing to do with data or stock prices, if they hire
some guy to write that type of software, it's just because they've got
so much money they don't know what to do with it, not because they
actually need/want the software...
[% Hence, it properly extracts and combines short- and long-term
capital gains and losses but not (yet) 5-year gains, and it always
works on the calendar year rather than arbitrary fiscal years. It
does not handle securities that morph upon a buyout or merger, or
change symbols, etc.]
Rotsa ruck with that, my code can, but at the expense of my sanity!

Here's a small hint at the lunacy involved with a system that truly aims
to track ALL the vagaries of stock prices as they IPO, are bought
out, go bankrupt, etc. First of all, of course, the "symbol" quite often
means nothing; for example, what is the actual return of the venarable
old company known as AT&T, symbol "T" for decades, when you
would have received shares of all the "baby bells" at the time of the
divestiture back in the 80s, only to wind up in the new millenium with
one of those "baby bells" buying out "T" after first acquiring several
other "baby bells", then changing its name back to AT&T!??!!??!!

So in terms of your relational database schema, you have to start not
with "symbols" as your first "key" table, and not even the "company
name", but rather a list of IPOs (which can be ordered date-company
name alpha for the sake of any searching convenience), which you must
assign some type of arbitrary code (see the SEC web site for an example
of the kind of code I'm talking about, where every "reporting entity"
is assigned a unique code, whether they have sold shares to the public
or not).

From this unique "IPO key", you then have key through more than
one "history" table, which at the MOST trivial level consists of the
CURRENT symbol time series price history (adjusted by the CURRENT
symbol split history, plus, of course, the CURRENT symbol DIVIDEND
history, with about 15 different types of dividends possible, including,
you guessed it, giving additional shares of stock, which is NOT
the same thing as a stock "split"!).

Just put your money in an index fund or ETF and forget about it for the
next forty years, you'll live a longer happier life...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 15 '06 #58

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:oQ*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eg**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:q1********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
NASDAQ's stock market (electronic transactions) caters to
technology
firms
which don't usually pay dividends. Also, it doesn't allow the
short
sales
of securities.
>
Take it from somebody who has shorted a LOT of NASDAQ stocks
over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting.
>
"Over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting" could very
well
be true, if it occurred after 2003 sometime.

Yes, and BEFORE 2003 too...dude, be aware you're about to
make me laugh out loud...
But, I believe what you're
referring to is "Intermarket Securities" or "19C3's". These are NYSE
registered, but can also be bought or sold through NASDAQ.
Nope, I'm referring to NASDAQ-listed stocks, period, not that small
subset of "Intermarket Securities"...
Fair enough. I'll have to check one day...

So far, I haven't seen any public (since I'm not at the brokerage anymore)
charting service show short interest for NASDAQ.
To think that some people read this sort of stuff for a living.
>
That was just a typical whacko uninformed Usenet rant.
NOBODY reads that sort of stuff for a living. If I got paid
every time I read a Holocaust denial, an Illuminati conspiracy
theory, et. al., on Usenet, I'D be richer than Bill Gates...
>
Unfortuantely, I programmed on a stock trading application for Fortune
500
brokerage for 3 years.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I'm glad you found that funny. My experience was "interesting" - politely
put: obtuse and ancient protocols, undecipherable law, and asshole brokers
who swore like sailors, cheat, lie, or steal, from anyone by any method that
they could get away with... This was while they were "complying" with some
settlement with regulators a few years earlier.
Sorry, I warned you...this is great, I hardly ever get those types of
big belly laughs here, mostly just lip-chewing pedantry (and actual useful
information, occasionally!), but given MY life experiences this is just
TOO funny!!!
I implemented securities laws to prevent brokers
from cheating clients (such as front running and other shenanigans). I
also
programmed on various, now older, protocols such as ACES, SuperSOES,
OATS,
and Nasdaq Quote and Data feeds.

Yeah, and I worked for a while for a company that was the leading
supplier of investment trading software to the industry, and almost every
day I was totally gob-smacked at how unimaginably uninformed most of
the "programmers" who worked there were about the actual operation
of markets they were seeking to "automate".
That's true. Those people and companies exist(ed). But, we rarely dealt
with anyone outside who had less than 15 years of direct experience. The
outside contractors had usually worked directly for a regional exchange or
were the long-term programmers for the industry software.
I'd be looking at some of their code that handled stock splits, and
ask, "What about reverse splits?" And they'd blink and ask "What's
a reverse split?"
Yes, that's true too. I knew nothing about it when I started. Many, many,
questions of the traders... Unfortunately, just as the brokers knew what
something was supposed to do, not one knew what was necessary to implement
it. And, they had *no idea* of the regulatory reporting requirements
required on each transaction. Except for the head traders, the traders
_rarely_ knew what the securities law were. I always found that to be
amazing since they had to pass tests to become licensed in the first place.

Every transaction generated something like 8kb of data and there could be as
many as 20 transactions per trade. The files for millions of transactions a
month were just huge. The reports required by the SEC numbered in the tens
of thousands. I believe they submitted a laser disk per month. Coding the
securities laws without knowing law and when the best answer you could get
was half-wit definition from a trader was trying at best. Unfortunately,
the lawyers were too busy defending the companies' 100+ lawsuits a month, to
help clarify what the law meant. So, the only people who had the time to
decide how things were implemented was us "lowly" programmers.
That is, the VERY small subset of "programmers" (software
"engineers"?) who actually spoke enough English to understand
and respond to the question, but not so much that they lived in
that very special fantasy world in which no actual fact from
the universe outside of their freshman IntroCompSci could
enter their white American male "engineer" heads without
causing an eruption of cognitive dissonance like a geeky
Vesuvius (this was, of course, prior to "outsourcing", now
many of them are quite agreeable with my refusal to add
fries to my order)...
I take it part of that the "CompSci" and "fantasy world" stuff was meant as
an insult too. I didn't come from a CS background but an EE one. But, yes,
that would apply to most of the CS majors I've known since they all were
into D&D.

Except for a very few programmers, they skimmed from the bottom of the
barrel when it came to hiring programmers. They usually hired the cheapest
they could get. They couldn't do that with the stock trading. It didn't
seem to matter to management that one good programmer would cost half the
salary of five bad programmers they were using. That doesn't take into
account the hidden costs of a bad job of which I had to correct a few
myself.

We had many who didn't speak English. I had to deal with them too. The
real tragedy was that half of them weren't immigrants. They were American
born products of inner city schools (no joke). Fortunately, they weren't on
trading software, but were on backend processing like customer accounts.
My post wasn't as "uninformed" as you
believe, although it could be very slightly out of date.
It was complete and total nonsense.
Now you are just being insulting. Since you make two claims: 1) you have
decades of experience as a licensed stock broker and 2) claim NASDAQ now
allows short sales, how do you think it worked prior to short sales, if not
the way I explained?
It was just a malformed
attempt to "explain" why Microsoft stock is higher than YOU
think it should be.
I don't care about the price MSFT. I've never owned it. I would've liked
to have worked there a decade and a half ago. And, if you take a look,
you'll see my comments were in reference to shorting stock on NASDAQ in
which MSFT was just the stock of example. But, I wouldn't recommend buying
calls or limit orders on MSFT.
Just as you almost certainly did when you
performed your important life duty of "implementing securities
laws", you just manufactured all the facts related to security
trading out of your feverish imagination.
"my life duty"? of "implementing securities laws"? That's pretty warped
and totally false. I worked there for 3 years and am no longer in the
securities industry. But, you do remind me of the verbally abusive piece of
shit traders at 9:30AM when the trading opened and they realized that they
lost their shirts...

And, no, I didn't make up any facts and I don't have a "feverish
imagination." In fact, I haven't seen much if anything in your posts
proving that you were/are a trader except the abusive language... I haven't
seen anything from you to indicate that you are anything but an individual
investor who got burned.

Do you know what a wide quote is and what it is used for? How do you
legally front run a customer's account by three months? Do you know why
stop and stop limit order's never execute?
But given three years, I'm quite confident you managed to
get your 1800-line "securities law" program to compile, if not
to provide any type of useful result...
1800-line? I guess you've never coded at all. I have personal utilities
that are three times that size.

I estimate I contributed a few hundred thousand lines of code in the three
years I was there. I found out near the end of my employment from another
brokerage firm, that our department of three to five people was doing the
same work that their 60 person team was doing...

The main stock trading application was a 3 million plus line program that
required two mini-frames to run. It took in four T1's with the quote and
data feeds, the customer orders from branches in all 50 states, routed
orders to Cinci (cheaper than NYSE), NASDAQ, dozens of intermediate Markets
and specialty market makers, plus all the regulatory agencies, etc.
But it really doesn't matter...as I realized during my stint with
that company after literally decades of trading the markets as
that rarest of breeds known as an "individual investor", the
"investment" industry cares not one whit about securities laws
(except when RARELY enforced), the technicalities of stock
trading, or even actual stock prices. They're a SALES
organization, first, foremost, and almost totally...
As I previously stated, I found that out rather quickly after a change of
management. If they aren't being sued, it's of no concern. Brokerages make
money on transactions and loans. The type of transaction: up, down, short,
etc. doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter that one guy bought a call
or stop order on margin and another guy is shorting the stock from his
margin account... It doesn't matter that stop and stop limit order's never
execute. You paid for the potential transaction.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 15 '06 #59

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:xW*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
The point of my
anecdote is that many, many, many "engineers" who work on
PROFESSIONAL trading software didn't have the first clue
about the topic, as we've just seen HERE again...
First, you didn't wait for my reply to your earlier post. And, if you did,
you'd have know that your statement is false.
If you think this lack of knowledge had no impact on the released
software, think again. I've sat and watched the real-time "professional"
data feeds coming through with what were obviously GIGANTIC
errors that quite clearly the result of either clerical or programming
error.
You also implied you were a licensed broker. But, from this statement "I've
sat and watched the real-time 'professional'", I doubt that you ever worked
at a brokerage...
The funny thing is, the "professionals" DON"T CARE...their
business has nothing to do with data or stock prices, if they hire
some guy to write that type of software, it's just because they've got
so much money they don't know what to do with it, not because they
actually need/want the software...
That's total BS. The "professionals" who wrote the software used by the
brokerage I worked for was usually written by people who worked for the
exchanges, such as PHLX and Cinci, for fifteen or more years. That might be
true of the crap you use on your home PC.
Here's a small hint at the lunacy involved with a system that truly aims
to track ALL the vagaries of stock prices as they IPO, are bought
out, go bankrupt, etc. First of all, of course, the "symbol" quite often
means nothing; for example, what is the actual return of the venarable
old company known as AT&T, symbol "T" for decades, when you
would have received shares of all the "baby bells" at the time of the
divestiture back in the 80s, only to wind up in the new millenium with
one of those "baby bells" buying out "T" after first acquiring several
other "baby bells", then changing its name back to AT&T!??!!??!!

So in terms of your relational database schema, you have to start not
with "symbols" as your first "key" table, and not even the "company
name", but rather a list of IPOs (which can be ordered date-company
name alpha for the sake of any searching convenience), which you must
assign some type of arbitrary code (see the SEC web site for an example
of the kind of code I'm talking about, where every "reporting entity"
is assigned a unique code, whether they have sold shares to the public
or not).
This is total BS. You've never dealt with a real-time quote or data feed
from NYSE or NASDAQ. Updates to the symbol tables are put out daily. The
quote and data feeds use that symbol. Both the head traders and
maintainers of the stock trading application have access to this for pay
data through the Internet.

<snip>

From your statements here, I can clearly say that you aren't and never were
a licensed broker.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 16 '06 #60

P: n/a
Rod Pemberton said:

<lots, all snipped>

Rod, this is why I don't agree with the "party line" that claims you're a
troll. Okay, the subject of this discussion has long since stopped being
topical, but so what? Topics do drift. Okay, so you were close to losing
your temper with this guy once or twice, but so what? Tempers do sometimes
fray. Okay, so I wasn't all that interested in the subject matter, but so
what? We can't all be interested in everything.

Mostly, it was an excellent, well-reasoned, and good-tempered rebuttal.

Yeah, okay, so we don't always see eye to eye. But so what?

BTW I owe you an apology for a snide one-liner I posted rather thoughtlessly
- yesterday, I think. Sorry about that. I do try not to say such things,
but I don't always manage it.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Oct 16 '06 #61

P: n/a
>Chris Torek <no****@torek.netwrote in message
>news:eg*********@news1.newsguy.com...
>What I wonder is: how could one *fail* to handle reverse splits?
In article <xW*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Bill Reid <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote:
>You already failed by using integers!

Sometimes splits are declared in the form of "1.5 to 1". Of course,
that's "3 to 2", but only after you go through the process of MANUALLY
converting the actual split data to an integer representation.

Fine for your purposes MAYBE (I'm not going to rack my brain now
to try to remember any possible cases where even this wouldn't work) ...
It would work whenever there is some integer ratio, which (as I
think I said earlier) is all I needed. The program gains features
only once I need them. :-) However, I just checked the code, and
it turns out that I used floating-point for both the numerator and
denominator anyway.
>[% Hence, it properly extracts and combines short- and long-term
capital gains and losses but not (yet) 5-year gains, and it always
works on the calendar year rather than arbitrary fiscal years. It
does not handle securities that morph upon a buyout or merger, or
change symbols, etc.]
>Rotsa ruck with that, my code can, but at the expense of my sanity!
Indeed. This is why I chose not to bother.
>... with about 15 different types of dividends possible, including,
you guessed it, giving additional shares of stock, which is NOT
the same thing as a stock "split"!
Again, not something I have personally had to deal with ... so, not
in my code. (I am not even sure how the IRS would want me to adjust
my cost bases.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Oct 16 '06 #62

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:X9********************@bt.com...
Rod Pemberton said:

<lots, all snipped>

Rod, this is why I don't agree with the "party line" that claims you're a
troll.
OP determines who is a troll. This was interesting reading. LS
Oct 16 '06 #63

P: n/a

Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eg**********@main.corriga.net...
>
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:xW*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

The point of my
anecdote is that many, many, many "engineers" who work on
PROFESSIONAL trading software didn't have the first clue
about the topic, as we've just seen HERE again...

First, you didn't wait for my reply to your earlier post. And, if you
did,
you'd have know that your statement is false.
Actually, I just read your response, and I didn't see anything in
it that would indicate my statement is false. In any event, I hope
you understand that I'm under no obligation to "wait" for your
"response" to respond to another poster...
If you think this lack of knowledge had no impact on the released
software, think again. I've sat and watched the real-time
"professional"
data feeds coming through with what were obviously GIGANTIC
errors that quite clearly the result of either clerical or programming
error.

You also implied you were a licensed broker.
You see, you DO live a rich fantasy world in which you just make
up facts out of thin air. I never SAID or IMPLIED I was a licensed
broker. I have never worked as a broker, licensed or otherwise.

But just like when you wanted to present "facts" about why Microsoft
stock was too high in your opinion, you just made up some imaginary
implication on my part about me being a "licensed broker".

Problem is, the words "licensed" and "broker" never even occurred
in my posts, let alone any other possible combination of words that
could lead a reasonable person to conclude that I was implying I
was a "licensed broker". I SPECIFICALLY said I was an "individual
investor" that worked for a while for a company that supplied
"professional" software to the investment industry.
But, from this statement "I've
sat and watched the real-time 'professional'", I doubt that you ever
worked
at a brokerage...
That's because I never did. As a matter of fact, I used to do it at
work, because that's what the company I worked for made. But for
that matter, I could walk two blocks down to the local office of
one of my brokers and watch pretty much the same thing, like
some retiree with his pants hiked up to his nipples...
The funny thing is, the "professionals" DON"T CARE...their
business has nothing to do with data or stock prices, if they hire
some guy to write that type of software, it's just because they've got
so much money they don't know what to do with it, not because they
actually need/want the software...
That's total BS. The "professionals" who wrote the software used by the
brokerage I worked for was usually written by people who worked for the
exchanges, such as PHLX and Cinci, for fifteen or more years. That might
be
true of the crap you use on your home PC.
Actually, the "crap" I use on my home PC is kind of subject to an
actual market force, which is the whole trend to lower and lower
commissions and self-trading that's been taking place over the last
twenty years. Myself, I'm old-fashioned, I still PHONE in orders,
but most "modern" individual investors react very poorly to
bad trading software and any commissions over $7 a trade...

Now "professional traders"...well, that's just an oxymoron, there's
no such thing...
Here's a small hint at the lunacy involved with a system that truly aims
to track ALL the vagaries of stock prices as they IPO, are bought
out, go bankrupt, etc. First of all, of course, the "symbol" quite
often
means nothing; for example, what is the actual return of the venarable
old company known as AT&T, symbol "T" for decades, when you
would have received shares of all the "baby bells" at the time of the
divestiture back in the 80s, only to wind up in the new millenium with
one of those "baby bells" buying out "T" after first acquiring several
other "baby bells", then changing its name back to AT&T!??!!??!!

So in terms of your relational database schema, you have to start not
with "symbols" as your first "key" table, and not even the "company
name", but rather a list of IPOs (which can be ordered date-company
name alpha for the sake of any searching convenience), which you must
assign some type of arbitrary code (see the SEC web site for an example
of the kind of code I'm talking about, where every "reporting entity"
is assigned a unique code, whether they have sold shares to the public
or not).
This is total BS.
What are you talking about? What's BS about that? You just
calling "BS" now on anything and everything I say? OK, the sun
shines during the day, have fun with that...
You've never dealt with a real-time quote or data feed
from NYSE or NASDAQ.
I already clearly stated I had dealt with them, and am quite familiar
with them. I didn't IMPLY it, I stated it in plain English. Therefore,
in your world, it didn't happen...
Updates to the symbol tables are put out daily.
Uh, yeah, what's your point? The linkage between old and new
and discontinued and bankrupt and bought out and so on and so
forth is not as robust in the exchange symbol tables as what
I was describing.
The
quote and data feeds use that symbol.
Wow, what a revelation. Quick, what's the symbol for "IBM"?
Fortunately, the real-time feeds do supply a mapping of symbols
to companies by company names. Then Reuters sends all this
to Yahoo! so the average yahoo gets the same information...I'm
still wondering what your point is?
Both the head traders and
maintainers of the stock trading application have access to this for pay
data through the Internet.
Oh, there's your point, kind of came out of left field after I already
pointed out that you can get just about all this stuff for free from any
number of web-sites.

Here's a fun question for you: what you many times don't get for free
is "real-time" data, it'll be like 15-minutes delayed or something. How
do they delay this data to make you want to pay for the "real-time"
stuff?

Another fun one: another "for pay" data service is commonly called
"Level Two", or the current "full" bid-ask book data. Who is the party
or parties that keep this a "for pay" data service?
>
From your statements here, I can clearly say that you aren't and never
were
a licensed broker.
Good for you, you finally figured out how to parse simple English. Was
it fun to burn the straw man you built?

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 16 '06 #64

P: n/a

Chris Torek <no****@torek.netwrote in message
news:eg*********@news4.newsguy.com...
Chris Torek <no****@torek.netwrote in message
news:eg*********@news1.newsguy.com...
What I wonder is: how could one *fail* to handle reverse splits?

In article <xW*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Bill Reid <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote:
You already failed by using integers!

Sometimes splits are declared in the form of "1.5 to 1". Of course,
that's "3 to 2", but only after you go through the process of MANUALLY
converting the actual split data to an integer representation.

Fine for your purposes MAYBE (I'm not going to rack my brain now
to try to remember any possible cases where even this wouldn't work) ...

It would work whenever there is some integer ratio, which (as I
think I said earlier) is all I needed. The program gains features
only once I need them. :-) However, I just checked the code, and
it turns out that I used floating-point for both the numerator and
denominator anyway.
There you go, no reason not to use the type it will generally be
promoted to within nanoseconds...
[% Hence, it properly extracts and combines short- and long-term
capital gains and losses but not (yet) 5-year gains, and it always
works on the calendar year rather than arbitrary fiscal years. It
does not handle securities that morph upon a buyout or merger, or
change symbols, etc.]
Rotsa ruck with that, my code can, but at the expense of my sanity!

Indeed. This is why I chose not to bother.
Well, I'm not that familiar with commercial portfolio software, but
I'm pretty sure they can account for all this stuff as long as you
MANUALLY enter the changes. Me, I'm after the "total return"
of the "total market" over time frames, since that impacts the
supply-demand ratio for stocks (and all other investments)...
... with about 15 different types of dividends possible, including,
you guessed it, giving additional shares of stock, which is NOT
the same thing as a stock "split"!

Again, not something I have personally had to deal with ... so, not
in my code. (I am not even sure how the IRS would want me to adjust
my cost bases.)
Right now, I'm not sure either...seems like a "dividend" of additional
stock would require some kind of stepped-up basis or something like
that, and might even subject you to some kind of possible AMT horror
if you didn't sell your "dividend" right away...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 16 '06 #65

P: n/a

Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eg**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:oQ*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eg**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:q1********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

NASDAQ's stock market (electronic transactions) caters to
technology
firms
which don't usually pay dividends. Also, it doesn't allow the
short
sales
of securities.

Take it from somebody who has shorted a LOT of NASDAQ stocks
over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting.

"Over the last few years, NASDAQ definitely allows shorting" could
very
well
be true, if it occurred after 2003 sometime.
Yes, and BEFORE 2003 too...dude, be aware you're about to
make me laugh out loud...
But, I believe what you're
referring to is "Intermarket Securities" or "19C3's". These are NYSE
registered, but can also be bought or sold through NASDAQ.
>
Nope, I'm referring to NASDAQ-listed stocks, period, not that small
subset of "Intermarket Securities"...
Fair enough. I'll have to check one day...
Hmmmm, shoot (the "facts") first, ask questions later...not cool,
definitely not cool...
So far, I haven't seen any public (since I'm not at the brokerage anymore)
charting service show short interest for NASDAQ.
Of course, they all do, they always have, though these numbers
have always been about a month out of date. EVERYBODY can get
the short interest numbers for NASDAQ and each individual
NASDAQ stock from just about all the financial web-sites.

For example, Yahoo! Finance has the short interest numbers for
every major index stock as part of their "Key Statistics" section.
For Google (symbol: GOOG), at the link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG
under "Share Statistics", they list the following:

Shares Short (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 6.60M
Short Ratio (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 1.6
Short % of Float (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 2.20%
Shares Short (prior month)3: 5.82M

Wow, that was tough. I actually had to go to a freakin' web-site
to find that "non-existent" information...
To think that some people read this sort of stuff for a living.

That was just a typical whacko uninformed Usenet rant.
NOBODY reads that sort of stuff for a living. If I got paid
every time I read a Holocaust denial, an Illuminati conspiracy
theory, et. al., on Usenet, I'D be richer than Bill Gates...

Unfortuantely, I programmed on a stock trading application for Fortune
500
brokerage for 3 years.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I'm glad you found that funny. My experience was "interesting" - politely
put: obtuse and ancient protocols, undecipherable law, and asshole brokers
who swore like sailors, cheat, lie, or steal, from anyone by any method
that
they could get away with...
Ah, yes, the torment of the honest man dealing with an irrational and
unfair world...I DO pity you...
This was while they were "complying" with some
settlement with regulators a few years earlier.
Yeah, they do get marginally more honest(-sounding, lip service) right
after the $50million+ fines, which is like a $5 parking ticket to you or
me...
Sorry, I warned you...this is great, I hardly ever get those types of
big belly laughs here, mostly just lip-chewing pedantry (and actual
useful
information, occasionally!), but given MY life experiences this is just
TOO funny!!!
I implemented securities laws to prevent brokers
from cheating clients (such as front running and other shenanigans).
I
also
programmed on various, now older, protocols such as ACES, SuperSOES,
OATS,
and Nasdaq Quote and Data feeds.
Yeah, and I worked for a while for a company that was the leading
supplier of investment trading software to the industry, and almost
every
day I was totally gob-smacked at how unimaginably uninformed most of
the "programmers" who worked there were about the actual operation
of markets they were seeking to "automate".
That's true. Those people and companies exist(ed).
Well, there you go. And apparently you were one of them...
But, we rarely dealt
with anyone outside who had less than 15 years of direct experience.
Experience doing what? Making up imaginary facts about "no short
sales on NASDAQ"?
The
outside contractors had usually worked directly for a regional exchange or
were the long-term programmers for the industry software.
You have two modes: you either are saying something outrageously
incorrect, or you speak pointless non-sequiturs. What does any of this
have to do with anything? In my world, years of experience doesn't
necessarily count for anything, or possibly counts for something
very negative...
I'd be looking at some of their code that handled stock splits, and
ask, "What about reverse splits?" And they'd blink and ask "What's
a reverse split?"
Yes, that's true too.
Well, so far, I guess I'm about 10 for 10 on a factual basis...that's the
way I like to keep it...
I knew nothing about it when I started.
And apparently, still nothing by the time you stopped.
Many, many,
questions of the traders...
You know, there was this thing that I used to hear about that kind
of pre-dated my direct experience working in software "development"
organizations. That thing was something called a "systems analyst"
or something like that. You know, a guy who was an expert
on the system and would kind of map out how the code should
work to the programmers, freeing them up to do what they specialized
in. Kind of like "division of labor", "interdependent work flow", all
that stuff that kind of took mankind out of the stone age...

What happened to that idea?
Unfortunately, just as the brokers knew what
something was supposed to do, not one knew what was necessary to implement
it. And, they had *no idea* of the regulatory reporting requirements
required on each transaction.
Of course not, because they were brokers. Brokers barely understand
the technicalities of trading, let alone the legalities of it.
Except for the head traders, the traders
_rarely_ knew what the securities law were. I always found that to be
amazing since they had to pass tests to become licensed in the first
place.
>
Maybe it's a six-question true-false test?
Every transaction generated something like 8kb of data and there could be
as
many as 20 transactions per trade. The files for millions of transactions
a
month were just huge. The reports required by the SEC numbered in the
tens
of thousands. I believe they submitted a laser disk per month. Coding
the
securities laws without knowing law and when the best answer you could get
was half-wit definition from a trader was trying at best. Unfortunately,
the lawyers were too busy defending the companies' 100+ lawsuits a month,
to
help clarify what the law meant. So, the only people who had the time to
decide how things were implemented was us "lowly" programmers.
Fake it till you make it?
That is, the VERY small subset of "programmers" (software
"engineers"?) who actually spoke enough English to understand
and respond to the question, but not so much that they lived in
that very special fantasy world in which no actual fact from
the universe outside of their freshman IntroCompSci could
enter their white American male "engineer" heads without
causing an eruption of cognitive dissonance like a geeky
Vesuvius (this was, of course, prior to "outsourcing", now
many of them are quite agreeable with my refusal to add
fries to my order)...
I take it part of that the "CompSci" and "fantasy world" stuff was meant
as
an insult too.
Yeah, I should apologize for that, because actually, the percentage of
truly whacked-out programmers is fairly small. But as with all bad
behavior,
it tends to stick in people's minds and drive out good behavior...
I didn't come from a CS background but an EE one. But, yes,
that would apply to most of the CS majors I've known since they all were
into D&D.
Well, D&D isn't a problem, unless you truly believe there are such
things as dragons, they just masquerade as humans who contradict them,
so they MUST be slain. (I once knew a UNIX kernel engineer who
threatened to shoot people with a bow and arrow he kept in his
cubicle, and it took management seven years to wake up and
fire his worthless looney ass.)
Except for a very few programmers, they skimmed from the bottom of the
barrel when it came to hiring programmers.
So that's how they got you? Sorry, couldn't resist...
They usually hired the cheapest
they could get.
Ah, the original "out-sourcers"...the genesis of one of the
greatest management fads of the last 100 years...
They couldn't do that with the stock trading. It didn't
seem to matter to management that one good programmer would cost half the
salary of five bad programmers they were using. That doesn't take into
account the hidden costs of a bad job of which I had to correct a few
myself.
Well, at least it was the glory days of "full employment"...
We had many who didn't speak English.
The good thing about people who can't speak English is they can't
come up with all the creative excuses about why they haven't finished the
job like the "natives"...
I had to deal with them too. The
real tragedy was that half of them weren't immigrants. They were American
born products of inner city schools (no joke). Fortunately, they weren't
on
trading software, but were on backend processing like customer accounts.
My post wasn't as "uninformed" as you
believe, although it could be very slightly out of date.
>
It was complete and total nonsense.

Now you are just being insulting.
No, I have been needlessly insulting, and I apologize to any offended
parties, but here I am just being factual. Your post was complete and
total nonsense, beginning to end.
Since you make two claims: 1) you have
decades of experience as a licensed stock broker and
I never made any such claim. That's purty close to just an out-and-out
lie on your part. Be aware I have a over-arching theory about humanity
and why some people become pathological liars...
2) claim NASDAQ now
allows short sales, how do you think it worked prior to short sales, if
not
the way I explained?
I can't even parse that question, let alone answer it, since it consists of
factual misstatements cunningly wrapped in illogical non-sequiturs and
topped with a sprinkling of dishonesty...
It was just a malformed
attempt to "explain" why Microsoft stock is higher than YOU
think it should be.

I don't care about the price MSFT. I've never owned it. I would've liked
to have worked there a decade and a half ago. And, if you take a look,
you'll see my comments were in reference to shorting stock on NASDAQ in
which MSFT was just the stock of example.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT

Shares Short (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 74.64M
Short Ratio (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 1.5
Short % of Float (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 0.90%
Shares Short (prior month)3: 72.90M

Does any of this thing called "reality" ever sink in with you?
But, I wouldn't recommend buying
calls or limit orders on MSFT.
"buying calls or limit orders"? Are you just stringing together market
"jargon" to try to impress somebody here? Because for me, that was
just another non-sequitur...
Just as you almost certainly did when you
performed your important life duty of "implementing securities
laws", you just manufactured all the facts related to security
trading out of your feverish imagination.
"my life duty"? of "implementing securities laws"? That's pretty warped
and totally false. I worked there for 3 years and am no longer in the
securities industry.
It was your contribution to your fellow man for those three years.
Should we thank you?
But, you do remind me of the verbally abusive piece of
shit traders at 9:30AM when the trading opened and they realized that they
lost their shirts...
Oh, their shirt was probably under their bed, that's where mine usually
is when I can't find it...
And, no, I didn't make up any facts and I don't have a "feverish
imagination."
No, you do, you really, really do. THAT'S a fact.
In fact, I haven't seen much if anything in your posts
proving that you were/are a trader except the abusive language...
Well, I guess that proves it then...either that, or I "implied" I was
a Marine drill instructor...
I haven't
seen anything from you to indicate that you are anything but an individual
investor who got burned.
Well, that's what I explicitly said, except the part about getting "burned".
But you may take that away with you as an "implication" if it makes you
happy...
Do you know what a wide quote is and what it is used for? How do you
legally front run a customer's account by three months? Do you know why
stop and stop limit order's never execute?
I think the general answer is:

THOSE BASTARDS!!!

or

THEIVIN" MARKET-MAKERS!!!!!
But given three years, I'm quite confident you managed to
get your 1800-line "securities law" program to compile, if not
to provide any type of useful result...
1800-line? I guess you've never coded at all.
Nope, I'm not a "professional" programmer, so in that sense I barely
know what a computer is...
I have personal utilities
that are three times that size.
My personal utilities are nine and half times that size...
I estimate I contributed a few hundred thousand lines of code in the three
years I was there.
Did any of them work?
I found out near the end of my employment from another
brokerage firm, that our department of three to five people was doing the
same work that their 60 person team was doing...
Show-off.
The main stock trading application was a 3 million plus line program that
required two mini-frames to run. It took in four T1's with the quote and
data feeds, the customer orders from branches in all 50 states, routed
orders to Cinci (cheaper than NYSE), NASDAQ, dozens of intermediate
Markets
and specialty market makers, plus all the regulatory agencies, etc.
Well, I'm impressed...
But it really doesn't matter...as I realized during my stint with
that company after literally decades of trading the markets as
that rarest of breeds known as an "individual investor", the
"investment" industry cares not one whit about securities laws
(except when RARELY enforced), the technicalities of stock
trading, or even actual stock prices. They're a SALES
organization, first, foremost, and almost totally...

As I previously stated, I found that out rather quickly after a change of
management. If they aren't being sued, it's of no concern. Brokerages
make
money on transactions and loans. The type of transaction: up, down,
short,
etc. doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter that one guy bought a call
or stop order on margin and another guy is shorting the stock from his
margin account... It doesn't matter that stop and stop limit order's
never
execute. You paid for the potential transaction.
I think you're agreeing with me, but all the jargony non-sequiturs make
it difficult to figure out...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 16 '06 #66

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Ly*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
For example, Yahoo! Finance has the short interest numbers for
every major index stock as part of their "Key Statistics" section.
For Google (symbol: GOOG), at the link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG
under "Share Statistics", they list the following:

Shares Short (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 6.60M
Short Ratio (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 1.6
Short % of Float (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 2.20%
Shares Short (prior month)3: 5.82M

Wow, that was tough. I actually had to go to a freakin' web-site
to find that "non-existent" information...
You forgot to read what the subscripted 3 is for:

3 = Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance;

This doesn't come close to proving shorting is allowed on NASDAQ. Shorting
and the short interest you see could be simulated by other executions
services. Like I said, I'll look it up someday... Or, you could point me
to the press release on one of NASDAQ websites.
But, we rarely dealt
with anyone outside who had less than 15 years of direct experience.

Experience doing what? Making up imaginary facts about "no short
sales on NASDAQ"?
Lost track did you? Outside programmers who programmed on the stock trading
application. For inside programmers it was acceptable to have
You have two modes: you either are saying something outrageously
incorrect, or you speak pointless non-sequiturs. What does any of this
have to do with anything? In my world, years of experience doesn't
necessarily count for anything, or possibly counts for something
very negative...
I pity you for you seem despondent and hopeless. In a world without truth
and order, how do you have any basis for making a decision?
I knew nothing about it when I started.

And apparently, still nothing by the time you stopped.
Blatantly incorrect. I know about the NBBO, order qualifiers: AON,FOK,IOC,
stop and stop limit orders, a bunch of stock symbols, a whole bunch of
security law I've tried to intentionally forget, various programming related
stuff you wouldn't be interested in, and a whole lot of other trivial
brokerage related info, etc.
Many, many,
questions of the traders...

You know, there was this thing that I used to hear about that kind
of pre-dated my direct experience working in software "development"
organizations. That thing was something called a "systems analyst"
or something like that. You know, a guy who was an expert
on the system and would kind of map out how the code should
work to the programmers, freeing them up to do what they specialized
in. Kind of like "division of labor", "interdependent work flow", all
that stuff that kind of took mankind out of the stone age...

What happened to that idea?
Yup, that was me or so they told me. I did it all and I just described how
it was done. The best my manager could do was talk Fantasy football 6 hours
a day to anyone who'd listen... He was a total waste of life. Management
loved him.
Except for the head traders, the traders
_rarely_ knew what the securities law were. I always found that to be
amazing since they had to pass tests to become licensed in the first
place.
Maybe it's a six-question true-false test?
Nope.
Fake it till you make it?
Hell no. I did it as best an as accurately as one could under the lousy
circumstances. But, maybe "fake it till you make it" works in the markets
for you? No? Aw, I guess that's why you're so bitter...
(I once knew a UNIX kernel engineer who
threatened to shoot people with a bow and arrow he kept in his
cubicle, and it took management seven years to wake up and
fire his worthless looney ass.)
I once knew a C programmer who spent his days programming a potato chip
database. Where he bought them, how many chips, what flavor, etc... The
guy was a brilliant C programmer. It was just that no one in management
wanted to deal with him. So, they used dozens of employees to replace him.

At another company, I also knew a guy who was just discussing his Korean war
experiences with another employee and was fired for mentioning "grenade"...
The person who got him fired claimed he'd said something about a "bomb."
This was years before 9/11. This was a small company and management there
considered everyone to be replaceable. The most important thing I learned
from them was that there were three employees, none of whom was in an
important position on the organization chart, who were irreplaceable. The
lack of those three, was a contributing factor in their bankruptcy.
Except for a very few programmers, they skimmed from the bottom of the
barrel when it came to hiring programmers.

So that's how they got you? Sorry, couldn't resist...
I've read a few of your posts on misc.invest.stocks...typical. But, true.
I was trying to change careers from the electronics industry to programming
and things weren't going smoothly. Fortunately, I received roughly a
$22,500 raise later on.
2) claim NASDAQ now
allows short sales, how do you think it worked prior to short sales, if
not
the way I explained?
I can't even parse that question, let alone answer it, since it consists
of
factual misstatements cunningly wrapped in illogical non-sequiturs and
topped with a sprinkling of dishonesty...
Whatever... Should I rephrase or will you just declare it to be a
non-sequitur too? How hard is it to say "I'm not interested" or just <snip>
the conversation?
Do you know what a wide quote is and what it is used for? How do you
legally front run a customer's account by three months? Do you know why
stop and stop limit order's never execute?
I think the general answer is:

THOSE BASTARDS!!!
or
THEIVIN" MARKET-MAKERS!!!!!
Given your posts about limit orders on misc.invest.stocks, I figured you'd
at least be interested in the last statement... I could've saved you some
money.

Well, I'll be more generous than you and answer my own questions and further
below I'll throw some of my stock opinions your way (one based on your
misc.invest.stocks comments). At least, I won't call you "Reidiot." ;)

----1
RPDo you know why stop and stop limit order's never execute?

Stop and stop limit orders never execute for three reasons:
1) they must be priced away from intra-day, intra-week, and intra-month
price variations or else they become orders too soon
2) they are usually priced to make enough of profit to cover their cost.
This prices them even further away from the market.
3) although usually GTC, most brokerages via account contract terms can
legally cancel them after a month.

In the case of the brokerage I worked for, they keep the order on the
trading system for two months although the customer account end cancelled
after a month. In fifteen years, they only had one which actually executed.

RPHow do you legally front run a customer's account by three months?

To legally front run your customers by many months, you pay a marketing
agency to cross reference your list of your (million dollar) customers with
the customer lists of leading financial magazines. Once you know which
magazine they read, you can buy an early copy of the magazine from the test
run from one of the subcontractors printing the magazine. They aren't
usually required to comply with the non-release requirements of the primary
printer. You now have a legal three month advantage against any customers
that use that magazine for their stock picks.

RPDo you know what a wide quote is and what it is used for?

A wide quote is when a MM (Market Maker) who doesn't make a market in that
security, puts in a quote that is far away from the market. The ask is
extremely high and the offer is extremely low. This quote becomes one of
the many quotes making up the NBBO. It's good for creating "bad trades." T
rades that execute at a bad price. If a security has:

1) a narrow trading range
2) a low daily volume,
3) most its of volume on of the quote, and
4) is rallying into the volume

then, when the trading breaks through the volume, the MM for that security
must update their quote quickly to reflect the market. If they fail to
update their quote quickly, the wide quote becomes the current NBBO, and a
few trades will be executed. 20% of the time the buyers brokerage will ask
for a correction, but 80% of the time the "bad trade" price sticks and the
buyers brokerage takes the loss.

----2
MSFT is the GM of software. It's growth is over. Now it's on the long
stable period, before it's decline. Haven't you ever read any books on
corporate bankruptcy?

MSFT's management is bloated. It's programmers are "underpaid" relative to
management. And, MSFT has lost it's dynamic, hyperactive, entrepreneurial
spirit. It reminds me of HP, before "Carly"...

Gold isn't going to drop 50% or about $165 to end the year down, so you'll
have dump your zero's and mail that book back to O'Higgins.

BPT is producing less than the 90,000 barrels they need to pay their
dividend. The entire field will be depleted in a few years. It should be
dropping like a rock. People must be buying in because of the dividend...
Rod Pemberton
Oct 16 '06 #67

P: n/a

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
>
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Ly*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

For example, Yahoo! Finance has the short interest numbers for
every major index stock as part of their "Key Statistics" section.
For Google (symbol: GOOG), at the link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG
under "Share Statistics", they list the following:

Shares Short (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 6.60M
Short Ratio (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 1.6
Short % of Float (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 2.20%
Shares Short (prior month)3: 5.82M

Wow, that was tough. I actually had to go to a freakin' web-site
to find that "non-existent" information...

You forgot to read what the subscripted 3 is for:

3 = Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance;

This doesn't come close to proving shorting is allowed on NASDAQ.
Shorting
and the short interest you see could be simulated by other executions
services. Like I said, I'll look it up someday... Or, you could point me
to the press release on one of NASDAQ websites.
But, we rarely dealt
with anyone outside who had less than 15 years of direct experience.
Experience doing what? Making up imaginary facts about "no short
sales on NASDAQ"?

Lost track did you? Outside programmers who programmed on the stock
trading
application. For inside programmers it was acceptable to have
Correction:
"For inside programmers it was acceptable to have" little or no experience.

Rod Pemberton
Oct 16 '06 #68

P: n/a

Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Ly*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

For example, Yahoo! Finance has the short interest numbers for
every major index stock as part of their "Key Statistics" section.
For Google (symbol: GOOG), at the link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG
under "Share Statistics", they list the following:

Shares Short (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 6.60M
Short Ratio (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 1.6
Short % of Float (as of 12-Sep-06)3: 2.20%
Shares Short (prior month)3: 5.82M

Wow, that was tough. I actually had to go to a freakin' web-site
to find that "non-existent" information...
You forgot to read what the subscripted 3 is for:

3 = Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance;

This doesn't come close to proving shorting is allowed on NASDAQ.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You did it again! Whew, that cleared my sinuses...
Shorting
and the short interest you see could be simulated by other executions
services.
Uh-oh, I don't like where this is going...man, do you have a hard head.
Never say die, eh?

Of course, shorting is done by brokers, not by exchanges. This is
true of ALL short sales, not just NASDAQ. As far as the exchange
is concerned, it's just another transaction, aside from any member
broker restrictions or SEC rules governing how brokers may implement
short sales.
Like I said, I'll look it up someday... Or, you could point me
to the press release on one of NASDAQ websites.
OK, here it is:

10/16/2006 (Rootyrs) - In a surprise move, NASDAQ today
announced that brokers may now continue to provide short sale
transactions to customers just as they have since the inception of
NASDAQ in the '70s. There was widespread doubt that they
would continue to allow the popular practice because some
Usenet kook claimed that NASDAQ didn't allow short sales
in a goofy post. In related news, God is considering switching
the period in which the sun shines to nighttime...
But, we rarely dealt
with anyone outside who had less than 15 years of direct experience.
Experience doing what? Making up imaginary facts about "no short
sales on NASDAQ"?
Lost track did you? Outside programmers who programmed on the stock
trading
application. For inside programmers it was acceptable to have
Have what? A sentence fragment?
You have two modes: you either are saying something outrageously
incorrect, or you speak pointless non-sequiturs. What does any of this
have to do with anything? In my world, years of experience doesn't
necessarily count for anything, or possibly counts for something
very negative...

I pity you for you seem despondent and hopeless. In a world without truth
and order, how do you have any basis for making a decision?
When interviewing candidates, I put a block on my desk with one side
painted white, the other painted black, and ask, "Which end is up?", then
work through similar types of questions if by sheer luck a weirdo like
you guesses the first one right...
I knew nothing about it when I started.
And apparently, still nothing by the time you stopped.
Blatantly incorrect. I know about the NBBO, order qualifiers:
AON,FOK,IOC,
stop and stop limit orders, a bunch of stock symbols, a whole bunch of
security law I've tried to intentionally forget, various programming
related
stuff you wouldn't be interested in, and a whole lot of other trivial
brokerage related info, etc.
You learned how to fake the "lingo". Great, just great...
Many, many,
questions of the traders...
You know, there was this thing that I used to hear about that kind
of pre-dated my direct experience working in software "development"
organizations. That thing was something called a "systems analyst"
or something like that. You know, a guy who was an expert
on the system and would kind of map out how the code should
work to the programmers, freeing them up to do what they specialized
in. Kind of like "division of labor", "interdependent work flow", all
that stuff that kind of took mankind out of the stone age...

What happened to that idea?
Yup, that was me or so they told me. I did it all and I just described
how
it was done. The best my manager could do was talk Fantasy football 6
hours
a day to anyone who'd listen... He was a total waste of life. Management
loved him.
This reminds me of my favorite revelation when working on "professional"
trading software. If you watch the real-time newsfeeds coming through,
about half (or more!) of all the stories ARE SPORTS SCORES! If that
doesn't tell you what "professional" traders do all day long, nothing
does...
Except for the head traders, the traders
_rarely_ knew what the securities law were. I always found that to be
amazing since they had to pass tests to become licensed in the first
place.
>
Maybe it's a six-question true-false test?
Nope.
Maybe they cheated?
Fake it till you make it?
Hell no. I did it as best an as accurately as one could under the lousy
circumstances. But, maybe "fake it till you make it" works in the markets
for you? No? Aw, I guess that's why you're so bitter...
Sure, worked great! Some of my best trading was done when I knew
the least about the markets!
(I once knew a UNIX kernel engineer who
threatened to shoot people with a bow and arrow he kept in his
cubicle, and it took management seven years to wake up and
fire his worthless looney ass.)

I once knew a C programmer who spent his days programming a potato chip
database. Where he bought them, how many chips, what flavor, etc... The
guy was a brilliant C programmer. It was just that no one in management
wanted to deal with him. So, they used dozens of employees to replace
him.
>
I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR A POTATO CHIP DATABASE ALL
MY LIFE!!!! WHAT'S HIS NAME?!!??!!!
Except for a very few programmers, they skimmed from the bottom of the
barrel when it came to hiring programmers.
So that's how they got you? Sorry, couldn't resist...
I've read a few of your posts on misc.invest.stocks...typical.
Gee, I hope you aren't a typical garden-variety Usenet stalker-kook...I
really hope you had some legitimate business over in that group, but then
I'm not very hopeful about that since I hardly post there anymore and
you must have done a Kookle, er, I mean a Google search on your
"enemy" (read: "sane person").
But, true.
I was trying to change careers from the electronics industry to
programming
and things weren't going smoothly. Fortunately, I received roughly a
$22,500 raise later on.
Faked it till you made it! Congratulations!
2) claim NASDAQ now
allows short sales, how do you think it worked prior to short sales,
if
not
the way I explained?
>
I can't even parse that question, let alone answer it, since it consists
of
factual misstatements cunningly wrapped in illogical non-sequiturs and
topped with a sprinkling of dishonesty...
Whatever... Should I rephrase or will you just declare it to be a
non-sequitur too? How hard is it to say "I'm not interested" or just
<snip>
the conversation?
The only thing I'm really interested in is why they shut down the mental
hospitals and dumped all the nuts onto Usenet...
Do you know what a wide quote is and what it is used for? How do you
legally front run a customer's account by three months? Do you know
why
stop and stop limit order's never execute?
>
I think the general answer is:

THOSE BASTARDS!!!
or
THEIVIN" MARKET-MAKERS!!!!!
Given your posts about limit orders on misc.invest.stocks, I figured you'd
at least be interested in the last statement...
God, I wonder just how old that post was...I don't use limits or stops.
I use market orders, but people say that's an open invitation to be raped
by "those bastards". Then other people say limits and stops are also
an open invitation to raped. My point has always been if you're going
to be raped no matter what, you might as well lay back and enjoy it...

And no, I'm really NOT interested in any more of your kookery,
but what can I do? Maybe write my congressman...
I could've saved you some
money.
No you couldn't. I think I've told you before, you're basically a
worthless nut who will never contribute anything to society.
Well, I'll be more generous than you and answer my own questions and
further
below I'll throw some of my stock opinions your way (one based on your
misc.invest.stocks comments).
OH GOD BLESS YOU, I AM SAVED!!!
At least, I won't call you "Reidiot." ;)
Yup, just another weirdo stalker. I actually don't mind being called
"Reidiot", just don't call me late for dinner...
----1
RPDo you know why stop and stop limit order's never execute?
Because they do. All the time. You're a nut, you live in a fantasy
world. While you were so busy stalking me at misc.invest.stocks,
you might have also read the literally TENS OF THOUSANDS
of posts by other people there who say something like "My limit
order for DXCM triggered today at 10.90".

And another shocker: the sun DOES shine during the day...
Stop and stop limit orders never execute for three reasons:
1) they must be priced away from intra-day, intra-week, and intra-month
price variations or else they become orders too soon
So they DO execute? Or what? I'm so confused...
2) they are usually priced to make enough of profit to cover their cost.
????? Whaaaa??? Huh?????
This prices them even further away from the market.
Oh, now THAT explains it. What happens if a trader makes a
mistake and actually sets a limit or a stop at a level that it actually
gets hit? (Of course, in your fantasy world, traders deliberately
set orders so far away from the current price so they'll never be
hit, and yet, I've heard people talk about orders being hit that
they set months earlier at a price like 75% below the then-current
price.)
3) although usually GTC, most brokerages via account contract terms can
legally cancel them after a month.
Depends on the broker. I don't use stops or limits, so I've never looked
at those portions of my broker contracts. Why don't you share this amazing
revelation about stops/limits in misc.invest.stocks? I mean, don't just
stalk people there, actually contribute to the sum of "knowledge"
there...I'm sure you'll go over like a ton of looney bricks...
In the case of the brokerage I worked for, they keep the order on the
trading system for two months although the customer account end cancelled
after a month. In fifteen years, they only had one which actually
executed.
>
This is kind of a chuckler, not a big belly laugh. Maybe you ARE just
a "troll", and this is all just a big put on, but if not, you're completely
insane...
RPHow do you legally front run a customer's account by three months?
Put on your best Nikes?
To legally front run your customers by many months, you pay a marketing
agency to cross reference your list of your (million dollar) customers
with
the customer lists of leading financial magazines. Once you know which
magazine they read, you can buy an early copy of the magazine from the
test
run from one of the subcontractors printing the magazine. They aren't
usually required to comply with the non-release requirements of the
primary
printer. You now have a legal three month advantage against any customers
that use that magazine for their stock picks.
Yeah, right, you might want to check SEC enforcement actions (some
very recently) against printer grunts who pulled this stuff...but what
magazine
has a THREE-MONTH lead time, particularly for MARKET INFO?!??!!

Tell the truth, you ARE a troll, right? This can't be real, nobody can be
this nutty...of course, I always think that every time I encounter a genuine
"Usenut", I honestly can't understand insanity and stupidity at this
level...
RPDo you know what a wide quote is and what it is used for?
It's a quote of a very long-winded politician?
A wide quote is when a MM (Market Maker) who doesn't make a market in that
security, puts in a quote that is far away from the market. The ask is
extremely high and the offer is extremely low. This quote becomes one of
the many quotes making up the NBBO. It's good for creating "bad trades."
T
rades that execute at a bad price. If a security has:

1) a narrow trading range
2) a low daily volume,
3) most its of volume on of the quote, and
4) is rallying into the volume

then, when the trading breaks through the volume, the MM for that security
must update their quote quickly to reflect the market. If they fail to
update their quote quickly, the wide quote becomes the current NBBO, and a
few trades will be executed. 20% of the time the buyers brokerage will ask
for a correction, but 80% of the time the "bad trade" price sticks and the
buyers brokerage takes the loss.
THOSE BASTARDS!!!!

Actually, some bastards play a game like that with thinly-traded after-hours
trading...how'd you like to buy GOOG for a buck a share? Sometimes
those trades actually get made...
----2
MSFT is the GM of software. It's growth is over. Now it's on the long
stable period, before it's decline. Haven't you ever read any books on
corporate bankruptcy?
I have 187 books in my personal library about corporate bankruptcy.
Oh wait, I just bought another five today, make that 192...

Sounds like you're changing your tune about MSFT. First it was some
feature of NASDAQ trading and their miniscule dividend, now it's just
projected low-growth fundamentals. Are you "saning up?"
MSFT's management is bloated. It's programmers are "underpaid" relative
to
management. And, MSFT has lost it's dynamic, hyperactive, entrepreneurial
spirit. It reminds me of HP, before "Carly"...
Well, apparently not sane enough to avoid some lame "bashing"...
Gold isn't going to drop 50% or about $165 to end the year down, so you'll
have dump your zero's and mail that book back to O'Higgins.
What book? WHAT DID THAT BASTARD O'HIGGINS SAY
ABOUT ME STEALING A BOOK FROM HIM???!?!?!! HE'S
A DAMN LIAR, I TELLZ YA!!!!!
BPT is producing less than the 90,000 barrels they need to pay their
dividend. The entire field will be depleted in a few years. It should be
dropping like a rock. People must be buying in because of the dividend...
IT'S THOSE BASTARD DIVIDENDS AGAIN!!!!

You know, it just struck me about the whole stalking thing: when you
went on your insano rant about NASDAQ not allowing shorting, there
had to more than few people who immediately knew you didn't know
what you were talking about. But unlike stupid me, they "averted their
eyes", and just hurried along with their business...I could learn something
from them, just let the kooks lay, everybody sane knows who they
are anyway...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 17 '06 #69

P: n/a
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
[...]
You know, it just struck me about the whole stalking thing: when you
went on your insano rant about NASDAQ not allowing shorting, there
had to more than few people who immediately knew you didn't know
what you were talking about. But unlike stupid me, they "averted their
eyes", and just hurried along with their business...I could learn something
from them, just let the kooks lay, everybody sane knows who they
are anyway...
Perhaps most of us "averted our eyes" because we realized that this
entire discussion is OFF TOPIC.

Would you consider taking it someplace else?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 17 '06 #70

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
snip
Perhaps most of us "averted our eyes" because we realized that this
entire discussion is OFF TOPIC.

Would you consider taking it someplace else?
An entire chapter of the leading fortran text talks about interopability
(sp?) with C. What does the C Standard say about fortran? EC
Oct 18 '06 #71

P: n/a
"Elijah Cardon" <in*****@invalid.netwrites:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
snip
>Perhaps most of us "averted our eyes" because we realized that this
entire discussion is OFF TOPIC.

Would you consider taking it someplace else?
An entire chapter of the leading fortran text talks about interopability
(sp?) with C. What does the C Standard say about fortran? EC
The C standard mentions the "fortran" keyword as a common extension in
Annex J (which is non-normative). There is no other mention of
Fortran.

Why do you ask? (The recent discussion has been about technical
operational details of the stock market, not Fortran.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 18 '06 #72

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Elijah Cardon" <in*****@invalid.netwrites:
>"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
>An entire chapter of the leading fortran text talks about
interop[er]ability
with C. What does the C Standard say about fortran? EC

The C standard mentions the "fortran" keyword as a common extension in
Annex J (which is non-normative). There is no other mention of
Fortran.

Why do you ask? (The recent discussion has been about technical
operational details of the stock market, not Fortran.)
It was the direction in which I wanted to bring the original post. I guess
I'll google for annex J. When the term non-normative is used in this
context, does that mean that compiler vendors need not conform to it? EC
Oct 18 '06 #73

P: n/a
Elijah Cardon wrote:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Elijah Cardon" <in*****@invalid.netwrites:
>>"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
>>An entire chapter of the leading fortran text talks about
interop[er]ability
with C. What does the C Standard say about fortran? EC
The C standard mentions the "fortran" keyword as a common extension in
Annex J (which is non-normative). There is no other mention of
Fortran.

Why do you ask? (The recent discussion has been about technical
operational details of the stock market, not Fortran.)
It was the direction in which I wanted to bring the original post. I guess
I'll google for annex J.
You really want to search for the entire standard (which costs money) or
a draft of it (which can be obtained legally for free. Fortunately for
you I can even save you the search since I have a link to a page all
about the standard and where you can obtain versions of it legally
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/c_standard
When the term non-normative is used in this
context, does that mean that compiler vendors need not conform to it? EC
Non-normative means that is is not really part of the standard just
information that has ben put in the standard document because the
authors felt it would be useful to document it.

Annex J is a list of extensions it is common for compilers to provide
which are *not* standard C and, indeed, in conforming mode a number of
them require diagnostics (it is up to the implementor whether a
diagnostic is an error, warning, informational message or a kick where
it really hurts, just as long as it diagnoses that the code does not
meet the standard in some manner.
--
Flash Gordon
Oct 18 '06 #74

P: n/a
"Elijah Cardon" <in*****@invalid.netwrites:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Elijah Cardon" <in*****@invalid.netwrites:
[...]
>>An entire chapter of the leading fortran text talks about
interop[er]ability
with C. What does the C Standard say about fortran? EC

The C standard mentions the "fortran" keyword as a common extension in
Annex J (which is non-normative). There is no other mention of
Fortran.

Why do you ask? (The recent discussion has been about technical
operational details of the stock market, not Fortran.)
It was the direction in which I wanted to bring the original post. I guess
I'll google for annex J. When the term non-normative is used in this
context, does that mean that compiler vendors need not conform to it? EC
Googling for Annex J probably won't be very useful; try Googling for
n1124.pdf (that's the latest post-C99 draft of the ISO C standard).
Annex J is part of it.

The header on Annex J is:

Annex J (informative) Portability issues

It's not part of the normative definition of the language; it's a
convenient summary of information that appears scattered through the
normative text of the standard.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 18 '06 #75

P: n/a

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:f0************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
Elijah Cardon wrote:
>"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
[annex J]
You really want to search for the entire standard (which costs money) or a
draft of it (which can be obtained legally for free. Fortunately for you I
can even save you the search since I have a link to a page all about the
standard and where you can obtain versions of it legally
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/c_standard
When the term non-normative is used in this
context, does that mean that compiler vendors need not conform to it? EC

Non-normative means that is is not really part of the standard just
information that has ben put in the standard document because the authors
felt it would be useful to document it.

Annex J is a list of extensions it is common for compilers to provide
which are *not* standard C and, indeed, in conforming mode a number of
them require diagnostics (it is up to the implementor whether a diagnostic
is an error, warning, informational message or a kick where it really
hurts, just as long as it diagnoses that the code does not meet the
standard in some manner.
http://www.billfordx.net/screendumps/cstuff.htm
It turns out I have n1124.pdf on hand but when I have a need to I will go
find this in my sent items and fire up your link. For its length, I think
it makes an interesting read. EC
Oct 18 '06 #76

P: n/a
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
Annex J is a list of extensions it is common for compilers to provide
which are *not* standard C and, indeed, in conforming mode a number of
them require diagnostics (it is up to the implementor whether a
diagnostic is an error, warning, informational message or a kick where
it really hurts,
I fully support this service!

Richard
Oct 19 '06 #77

P: n/a
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
>
Non-normative means that is is not really part of the standard just
information that has ben put in the standard document because the
authors felt it would be useful to document it.
No. Non-normative simply means that it does not impose requirements, it
is still part of the standard. Non-normative text runs the gammut from
critically important for understanding normative text that *does* impose
requirements to completely redundant information that's duplicated for
convenience.

-Larry Jones

In my opinion, we don't devote nearly enough scientific research
to finding a cure for jerks. -- Calvin
Oct 19 '06 #78

P: n/a

<la************@ugs.comwrote in message
news:qd************@jones.homeip.net...
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
>>
Non-normative means that is is not really part of the standard just
information that has ben put in the standard document because the
authors felt it would be useful to document it.

No. Non-normative simply means that it does not impose requirements, it
is still part of the standard. Non-normative text runs the gammut from
critically important for understanding normative text that *does* impose
requirements to completely redundant information that's duplicated for
convenience.
Annex J calls itself 'informative', and it's not a misnomer. It doesn't
seem to bog down in arguing about how many implicit angels are on the head
of a pin. EC
Oct 19 '06 #79

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Wt*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Ly*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Shorting
and the short interest you see could be simulated by other executions
services.

Uh-oh, I don't like where this is going...man, do you have a hard head.
Never say die, eh?

Of course, shorting is done by brokers, not by exchanges. This is
true of ALL short sales, not just NASDAQ. As far as the exchange
is concerned, it's just another transaction, aside from any member
broker restrictions or SEC rules governing how brokers may implement
short sales.
Like I said, I'll look it up someday... Or, you could point me
to the press release on one of NASDAQ websites.
OK, here it is:

10/16/2006 (Rootyrs) - In a surprise move, NASDAQ today
announced that brokers may now continue to provide short sale
transactions to customers just as they have since the inception of
NASDAQ in the '70s. There was widespread doubt that they
would continue to allow the popular practice because some
Usenet kook claimed that NASDAQ didn't allow short sales
in a goofy post. In related news, God is considering switching
the period in which the sun shines to nighttime...
Amazing, you declare it to be true, me to be false, and yet, the _simple_
task of posting something proving your truth eludes you... I see why they
called you "Reidiot": no basis in fact.
But, we rarely dealt
with anyone outside who had less than 15 years of direct experience.
>
Experience doing what? Making up imaginary facts about "no short
sales on NASDAQ"?
>
Lost track did you? Outside programmers who programmed on the stock
trading
application. For inside programmers it was acceptable to have
Have what? A sentence fragment?
I posted a corrected followup 7 hours prior to your response. Can't you
read?
You have two modes: you either are saying something outrageously
incorrect, or you speak pointless non-sequiturs. What does any of
this
have to do with anything? In my world, years of experience doesn't
necessarily count for anything, or possibly counts for something
very negative...
I pity you for you seem despondent and hopeless. In a world without
truth
and order, how do you have any basis for making a decision?
When interviewing candidates, I put a block on my desk with one side
painted white, the other painted black, and ask, "Which end is up?", then
work through similar types of questions if by sheer luck a weirdo like
you guesses the first one right...
I'm not the one who thought he could be a professional trader by passing by
a coworkers Bloomberg terminal a couple of times a day... And, I seriously
doubt that you're in any position to interview anyone. What are you going
to tell me next? Something else totally false, like say, you started US
Gold, and you need stock brokers, and this was my interview and I failed...
I knew nothing about it when I started.
>
And apparently, still nothing by the time you stopped.
>
Blatantly incorrect. I know about the NBBO, order qualifiers:
AON,FOK,IOC,
stop and stop limit orders, a bunch of stock symbols, a whole bunch of
security law I've tried to intentionally forget, various programming
related
stuff you wouldn't be interested in, and a whole lot of other trivial
brokerage related info, etc.
You learned how to fake the "lingo". Great, just great...
Nope, you learned to fake the "lingo". I learned where it was used.
Perhaps, not how it was used, but where it was used.
This reminds me of my favorite revelation when working on "professional"
trading software. If you watch the real-time newsfeeds coming through,
about half (or more!) of all the stories ARE SPORTS SCORES! If that
doesn't tell you what "professional" traders do all day long, nothing
does...
So, they aren't focused on making money... or doing their job? Imagine
that. That must've been very attractive to you. A moth to a flame...
Hell no. I did it as best an as accurately as one could under the lousy
circumstances. But, maybe "fake it till you make it" works in the
markets
for you? No? Aw, I guess that's why you're so bitter...
Sure, worked great! Some of my best trading was done when I knew
the least about the markets!
Beginners luck. I take it that means your stock trading career is dead.
So, why are you still trying?
I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR A POTATO CHIP DATABASE ALL
MY LIFE!!!! WHAT'S HIS NAME?!!??!!!
No idea. It was too hot politically for me to associate with him. I'd have
been deep-fried. Sorry, did I beat you to it? Nope, you can't say that.
You've already try to call me a potato.
I've read a few of your posts on misc.invest.stocks...typical.

Gee, I hope you aren't a typical garden-variety Usenet stalker-kook...I
really hope you had some legitimate business over in that group, but then
I'm not very hopeful about that since I hardly post there anymore and
you must have done a Kookle, er, I mean a Google search on your
"enemy" (read: "sane person").
How am I supposed to accept that you're sane (not that I actually care,
fortunately for you, you're totally insignificant to me)? You've basically
proposed world domination with your "global thermonuclear investment"
strategies. If I was judgemental, I'd say that's about as close to insane
one can get.
But, true.
I was trying to change careers from the electronics industry to
programming
and things weren't going smoothly. Fortunately, I received roughly a
$22,500 raise later on.
Faked it till you made it! Congratulations!
Are you reselling IP's? You're email address, happyhealthy.net suggests so.
I guess you're still trying... to make it. Sorry! We all know your faking
it.
The only thing I'm really interested in is why they shut down the mental
hospitals and dumped all the nuts onto Usenet...
Are you confused? You mean to say you don't care about stocks? Then, what
_have_ you been conversing about? From my IQ, I know I'm not the stupid or
confused one here.
Given your posts about limit orders on misc.invest.stocks, I figured
you'd
at least be interested in the last statement...

God, I wonder just how old that post was...I don't use limits or stops.
I use market orders, but people say that's an open invitation to be raped
by "those bastards". Then other people say limits and stops are also
an open invitation to raped. My point has always been if you're going
to be raped no matter what, you might as well lay back and enjoy it...

And no, I'm really NOT interested in any more of your kookery,
but what can I do? Maybe write my congressman...
Realize that my posts were based on facts, and you supplied no facts, i.e.,
you're delusional.
I could've saved you some
money.
No you couldn't. I think I've told you before, you're basically a
worthless nut who will never contribute anything to society.
You didn't state that, but I suspect you're projecting your own
self-personification onto me. Alot like that manager I used to work for...
Wow! Boy was he ever an ass. Is that what you're striving for here?
Ass-hole of the year award? Wouldn't that be easier on a stock NG?
At least, I won't call you "Reidiot." ;)
Yup, just another weirdo stalker. I actually don't mind being called
"Reidiot", just don't call me late for dinner...
It seems that everyone but you is a "wierdo stalker." How can this be: only
one non-wierdo stalke in the world. That'd be totally illogical. That _is_
complete opposite of me, and _supposedly_, the complete opposite of you...
You're wrong.
RPDo you know why stop and stop limit order's never execute?
Because they do. All the time. You're a nut, you live in a fantasy
world. While you were so busy stalking me at misc.invest.stocks,
you might have also read the literally TENS OF THOUSANDS
of posts by other people there who say something like "My limit
order for DXCM triggered today at 10.90".

And another shocker: the sun DOES shine during the day...
Stop and stop limit orders never execute for three reasons:
1) they must be priced away from intra-day, intra-week, and intra-month
price variations or else they become orders too soon

So they DO execute? Or what? I'm so confused...
2) they are usually priced to make enough of profit to cover their cost.

????? Whaaaa??? Huh?????
This prices them even further away from the market.

Oh, now THAT explains it. What happens if a trader makes a
mistake and actually sets a limit or a stop at a level that it actually
gets hit? (Of course, in your fantasy world, traders deliberately
set orders so far away from the current price so they'll never be
hit, and yet, I've heard people talk about orders being hit that
they set months earlier at a price like 75% below the then-current
price.)
3) although usually GTC, most brokerages via account contract terms can
legally cancel them after a month.
Depends on the broker. I don't use stops or limits, so I've never looked
at those portions of my broker contracts. Why don't you share this
amazing
revelation about stops/limits in misc.invest.stocks? I mean, don't just
stalk people there, actually contribute to the sum of "knowledge"
there...I'm sure you'll go over like a ton of looney bricks...
In the case of the brokerage I worked for, they keep the order on the
trading system for two months although the customer account end
cancelled
after a month. In fifteen years, they only had one which actually
executed.
This is kind of a chuckler, not a big belly laugh. Maybe you ARE just
a "troll", and this is all just a big put on, but if not, you're
completely
insane...
No. It is 100% true. Accept it and move on. Now, you could make some
money from what you just said, _IF_ you can prove it to be true. Which, you
haven't been able to do so far. You just claimed to have found a test for
insanity. Very _potentially_ profitable... Or, is it just worthless, like
you're ideas, investment strategies, and everything else in your life?
RPHow do you legally front run a customer's account by three months?
Put on your best Nikes?
To legally front run your customers by many months, you pay a marketing
agency to cross reference your list of your (million dollar) customers
with
the customer lists of leading financial magazines. Once you know which
magazine they read, you can buy an early copy of the magazine from the
test
run from one of the subcontractors printing the magazine. They aren't
usually required to comply with the non-release requirements of the
primary
printer. You now have a legal three month advantage against any
customers
that use that magazine for their stock picks.
Yeah, right, you might want to check SEC enforcement actions (some
very recently) against printer grunts who pulled this stuff...but what
magazine
has a THREE-MONTH lead time, particularly for MARKET INFO?!??!!
Like I said, the last I worked there was 2003. Spitzer fixed the most
glaring abuses, but thousands remained. I'm not going to tell you which
one they purchased the most (it was read by the majority of their wealthy
customers). But, suffice it to say that any financial magazine available in
the US or the UK was obtained at various points in time.
Tell the truth, you ARE a troll, right? This can't be real, nobody can be
this nutty...of course, I always think that every time I encounter a
genuine
"Usenut", I honestly can't understand insanity and stupidity at this
level...
All true. All 100% rational. From the typical responses of others to you,
I'd say that description fits you far better than me.
MSFT is the GM of software. It's growth is over. Now it's on the long
stable period, before it's decline. Haven't you ever read any books on
corporate bankruptcy?
I have 187 books in my personal library about corporate bankruptcy.
Oh wait, I just bought another five today, make that 192...
Have you read _any_ of them? You do read don't you? Well then, it must be
a comprehension problem...
Sounds like you're changing your tune about MSFT. First it was some
feature of NASDAQ trading and their miniscule dividend, now it's just
projected low-growth fundamentals. Are you "saning up?"
I have no interest in MSFT. But, their stock isn't going anywhere. It had
it's boom, now it's bust.
Well, apparently not sane enough to avoid some lame "bashing"...
Aw, I've been relatively polite, you've been "lame 'bashing'" me the whole
way... And, when presented with the chance to discuss a number stock
related issues, you've dismissed them all. Why? Afraid your ignorance will
show? You know I'm a programmer, not a broker. It should've been an
_extremely_ easy win for you.
Gold isn't going to drop 50% or about $165 to end the year down, so
you'll
have dump your zero's and mail that book back to O'Higgins.
What book?
Oh, you mean you didn't base your lame gold predictions for 2006 on
O'Higgins' "Beating the Dow with Bonds"... I could've sworn otherwise. You
implied you read and have a well stocked library of stock books: "make that
192..." Was that a lie too?
You know, it just struck me about the whole stalking thing:
Who stalked who? You, non-programmer and self-proclaimed "professional"
stock trader, found my post about stocks buried miles deep in a computer
programming newsgroup... It looks like you searched for something and you
found me.
when you
went on your insano rant about NASDAQ not allowing shorting, there
had to more than few people who immediately knew you didn't know
what you were talking about.
Really? My statements were made from fact. I even clarified the timeframe
for you. And, you still haven't provided truth to the contrary...
But unlike stupid me, they "averted their
eyes", and just hurried along with their business...I could learn
something
from them, just let the kooks lay, everybody sane knows who they
are anyway...
Putting yourself on a pedal? Tsk, tsk...
Rod Pemberton
Oct 19 '06 #80

P: n/a

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
[...]
You know, it just struck me about the whole stalking thing: when you
went on your insano rant about NASDAQ not allowing shorting, there
had to more than few people who immediately knew you didn't know
what you were talking about. But unlike stupid me, they "averted their
eyes", and just hurried along with their business...I could learn
something
from them, just let the kooks lay, everybody sane knows who they
are anyway...

Perhaps most of us "averted our eyes" because we realized that this
entire discussion is OFF TOPIC.
Perhaps for many...but, of course, not for you, since you read 17K of
post to make this response. Right?
Would you consider taking it someplace else?
Apparently, I don't have that power. When you were slavishly
reading the 17K post, you may have noted that I suggested the
individual in question share his remarkable knowledge with
the people on misc.invest.stocks, so that they may comment
on his "revelations". Not surprisingly, he chose not to do so, but
rather he chose to entertain YOU (and a few others who have
explicitly expressed interest) with a further 17K of insane
ramblings.

Maybe if YOU made the same suggestion to him, he would
vacate these premises and provide his valuable stock-picking
services to a more appropriate audience...

....of course, if I believed that, I'D be the crazy one. But
I am STRONGLY suggesting that you give it the "old college try"
anyway. Frankly, at this point, I'd be mortified to call myself
a "professional" programmer with this guy on "my team", but
then I actually have just a SHRED of self-respect...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 20 '06 #81

P: n/a
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
[...]
You know, it just struck me about the whole stalking thing: when
you went on your insano rant about NASDAQ not allowing shorting,
there had to more than few people who immediately knew you didn't
know what you were talking about. But unlike stupid me, they
"averted their eyes", and just hurried along with their
business...I could learn something from them, just let the kooks
lay, everybody sane knows who they are anyway...

Perhaps most of us "averted our eyes" because we realized that this
entire discussion is OFF TOPIC.
Perhaps for many...but, of course, not for you, since you read 17K of
post to make this response. Right?
Wrong. I've barely skimmed some of it, which was more than enough to
know that it's off-topic.
>Would you consider taking it someplace else?
Apparently, I don't have that power. When you were slavishly
reading the 17K post, you may have noted that I suggested the
individual in question share his remarkable knowledge with
the people on misc.invest.stocks, so that they may comment
on his "revelations". Not surprisingly, he chose not to do so, but
rather he chose to entertain YOU (and a few others who have
explicitly expressed interest) with a further 17K of insane
ramblings.
I was addressing my suggestion to *both* of you. You have the power
to stop discussing it in comp.lang.c, whatever the other participant
chooses to do. And so does he (I don't even remember who the other
participant is). The fact that I responded to one of your articles
rather than one of his doesn't mean anything.
Maybe if YOU made the same suggestion to him, he would
vacate these premises and provide his valuable stock-picking
services to a more appropriate audience...
I don't *care* whether either of you talks about it somewhere else or
not. I am asking each of your, or either of you, to stop talking
about it here.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 20 '06 #82

P: n/a
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
Would you consider taking it someplace else?
Apparently, I don't have that power.
So you don't know about Followup-To? Odd. I do.

Richard
Oct 20 '06 #83

P: n/a
While it was refreshing 15 messages ago to hear in clc that MS exists, the
quitting bell sounded when Heathfield said "enough already." Rolling dice
has crapped out. EC
Oct 20 '06 #84

P: n/a

Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Wt*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Ly*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Shorting
and the short interest you see could be simulated by other executions
services.
Uh-oh, I don't like where this is going...man, do you have a hard head.
Never say die, eh?

Of course, shorting is done by brokers, not by exchanges. This is
true of ALL short sales, not just NASDAQ. As far as the exchange
is concerned, it's just another transaction, aside from any member
broker restrictions or SEC rules governing how brokers may implement
short sales.
Like I said, I'll look it up someday... Or, you could point me
to the press release on one of NASDAQ websites.
>
OK, here it is:

10/16/2006 (Rootyrs) - In a surprise move, NASDAQ today
announced that brokers may now continue to provide short sale
transactions to customers just as they have since the inception of
NASDAQ in the '70s. There was widespread doubt that they
would continue to allow the popular practice because some
Usenet kook claimed that NASDAQ didn't allow short sales
in a goofy post. In related news, God is considering switching
the period in which the sun shines to nighttime...
Amazing, you declare it to be true, me to be false, and yet, the _simple_
task of posting something proving your truth eludes you... I see why they
called you "Reidiot": no basis in fact.
OK, you want a "press release", here it is. I got this "press release"
from NASDAQ by typing "NASDAQ short sales" into the "Search"
box of http://www.google.com, and it was the second unsponsered
link (note that all the top links are from the http://www.nasdaq.com
web site which provide the current and historical NASDAQ "short
interest" that you claim doesn't exist). This is something that an
eight-year-old girl could and would do in a matter of seconds to
ascertain a "fact", but seems to completely elude you, you "professional
programmer", you:

http://www.nasdaq.com/newsroom/news/...tion06_113.stm

THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET ANNOUNCES
OPEN SHORT INTEREST POSITIONS IN NASDAQ
STOCKS FOR SEPTEMBER 2006

New York, NY, September 26, 2006 -As of mid-September,
short interest in 2,730 NASDAQ Global MarketSM securities
totaled 7,209,431,128 shares compared with 7,112,973,390
shares in 2,718 Global Market issues for the month of August.

The September short interest represents 4.39 days average
daily NASDAQ Global Market share volume for the reporting
period, compared with 3.72 days in August. Short interest in 564
securities on The NASDAQ Capital MarketSM totaled
144,343,205 shares for September, compared with 155,133,038
shares in 568 securities for the month of August. This represents
3.33 days average daily volume, compared with last month's
figure of 3.06.

In summary, short interest in all 3,294 NASDAQ® securities
totaled 7,353,774,333 shares for September, compared with
3,286 issues and 7,268,106,428 shares in August. This is 4.36
days average daily volume, compared with last month's average
of 3.70 days.

The open short-interest positions reported for each NASDAQ
security reflect the total number of shares sold short by all
broker/dealers regardless of their exchange affiliations. A short sale
is generally understood to mean the sale of a security that the seller
does not own or any sale that is consummated by the delivery of a
security borrowed by or for the account of the seller.

The monthly NASDAQ short-interest figures are current as of the
14th of the month and are released to the media after the market
close on the seventh business day following that date. The figures
this month include all short-interest positions reported from
August 10, 2006 through September 12, 2006 and settled
as of September 15, 2006.

The total NASDAQ short positions for the preceding 12 months
and current month follow:

Settlement Date Total Short Interest Number of
Securities
September 15, 2005 5,811,842,432 3,337
October 14, 2005 5,944,351,614 3,316
November 15, 2005 5,913,634,842 3,302
December 15, 2005 5,882,483,998 3,311
January 13, 2006 5,885,355,970 3,312
February 15, 2006 5,801,377,970 3,305
March 15, 2006 6,198,926,815 3,295
April 13, 2006 6,286,025,884 3,282
May 15, 2006 6,451,337,395 3,301
June 15, 2006 7,188,384,593 3,299
July 14, 2006 7,139,899,294 3,300
August 15, 2006 7,268,106,428 3,286
September 15, 2006 7,353,774,333 3,294

For more information on NASDAQ Short-Interest positions, including
publication dates, visit www.nasdaqtrader.com/asp/short_interest.asp.
# # #

Media Contacts:
Wayne Lee, NASDAQ
301.978.4875

---end of "non-existent" press release

I've asked you to take this discussion somewhere else more
appropriate...maybe you could just "crank call" Mr. Wayne Lee
at NASDAQ press relations 301.978.4875 and bug him
for a while? Although your "professional programmer" colleagues
seem to be quite charmed with your tenacious pursuit of the
non-truth, I do grow weary talking to looney retards and
would prefer to just "fire" you and get back to making money...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 20 '06 #85

P: n/a

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
[...]
You know, it just struck me about the whole stalking thing: when
you went on your insano rant about NASDAQ not allowing shorting,
there had to more than few people who immediately knew you didn't
know what you were talking about. But unlike stupid me, they
"averted their eyes", and just hurried along with their
business...I could learn something from them, just let the kooks
lay, everybody sane knows who they are anyway...

Perhaps most of us "averted our eyes" because we realized that this
entire discussion is OFF TOPIC.
Perhaps for many...but, of course, not for you, since you read 17K of
post to make this response. Right?

Wrong. I've barely skimmed some of it, which was more than enough to
know that it's off-topic.
Sure, whatever you say...
Would you consider taking it someplace else?
Apparently, I don't have that power. When you were slavishly
reading the 17K post, you may have noted that I suggested the
individual in question share his remarkable knowledge with
the people on misc.invest.stocks, so that they may comment
on his "revelations". Not surprisingly, he chose not to do so, but
rather he chose to entertain YOU (and a few others who have
explicitly expressed interest) with a further 17K of insane
ramblings.

I was addressing my suggestion to *both* of you.
Wrong. You specifically replied to my post. I waited patiently
to see if you would make the same request of the alleged "Jurassic
Park programmer", but disappointingly, your vigilance on the topic
of off-topicality wavered.

You've mischaracterized this "discussion" as being about the
"stock market". It has nothing to do with the "stock market".
It has to do with "professional" programmers ripping off their
employers, or with severe mental illness. If this guy actually
worked for three years for a brokerage as he claimed, he
STOLE every single penny they paid him, and he's revealing
exactly the behavior he used to steal it.

Or he's just a complete looney fake with a resume and life
history that exists only in his rich imagination and Usenet. Now
here's the problem: I can't tell which. The thing is, he wouldn't
be the first "professional" programmer I've encountered who
ripped off their employer, sometimes for upwards of a decade,
and never produced a single bit of working code.

Of course, that was all in my post that you claim you never
read, but by "skimming" it you decided suddenly it was "off-topic",
after about 200K of "skimming" and even your active participation
on the topic of "Bill Gates is not Microsoft".

So as a rational person, I developed a theory: you actually
have a dog in this hunt, and question is, what color is the dog,
and just how mangy is it?
You have the power
to stop discussing it in comp.lang.c, whatever the other participant
chooses to do.
That's correct, and it's always a waste of time arguing with a
whack job, they have "insane strength" that a "normal" just doesn't
possess, and I've actually got better things to do. If he has
managed to rip off any employers with this behavior, I gotta
say, it's a job skill of some sort, a very peculiar job "skill",
but one I certainly don't possess (that damn SHRED of
self-respect again)...
And so does he (I don't even remember who the other
participant is).
You know, I just don't fully believe you, doesn't seem credible
somehow...
The fact that I responded to one of your articles
rather than one of his doesn't mean anything.
Well, I have my "theory", and I put it to an experimental test...
Maybe if YOU made the same suggestion to him, he would
vacate these premises and provide his valuable stock-picking
services to a more appropriate audience...

I don't *care* whether either of you talks about it somewhere else or
not. I am asking each of your, or either of you, to stop talking
about it here.
And this concludes my test, and even contains additional "evidence".
You obviously CARE because you post. Riiiiiiiiiiight? The question
is: what exactly is it that you care about?

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 20 '06 #86

P: n/a

Elijah Cardon <in*****@invalid.netwrote in message
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com...
While it was refreshing 15 messages ago to hear in clc that MS exists, the
quitting bell sounded when Heathfield said "enough already." Rolling dice
has crapped out. EC
Of course, no such message was ever sent. Here is the actual
message, which has a completely different intent to what you aver
(reading incomprehension much?):

From: Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: rolling dice
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:09 PM

Rod Pemberton said:

<lots, all snipped>

Rod, this is why I don't agree with the "party line" that claims you're a
troll. Okay, the subject of this discussion has long since stopped being
topical, but so what? Topics do drift. Okay, so you were close to losing
your temper with this guy once or twice, but so what? Tempers do sometimes
fray. Okay, so I wasn't all that interested in the subject matter, but so
what? We can't all be interested in everything.

Mostly, it was an excellent, well-reasoned, and good-tempered rebuttal.

Yeah, okay, so we don't always see eye to eye. But so what?

BTW I owe you an apology for a snide one-liner I posted rather thoughtlessly
- yesterday, I think. Sorry about that. I do try not to say such things,
but I don't always manage it.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

---end of archived post

Not only did he not call a halt to the proceedings, he seemed to
want to "egg them on".

The mind is a funny thing. Any idea why somebody would actively
encourage an "off-topic discussion", and why somebody else would
characterize that as "enough already"?

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 20 '06 #87

P: n/a
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote in message
news:45****************@news.xs4all.nl...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
Would you consider taking it someplace else?
>
Apparently, I don't have that power.

So you don't know about Followup-To? Odd. I do.
Odd that you don't understand it only moves the NEXT response
to another group, and only for the unwary. A cagy nutjob will be
back here faster than you can say "padded cell". Odd that some
people can't seem to accomplish anything useful in life, even the
simplest of things, but can manage to peck out Usenet posts...

But, always the rational scientific mind, let's see what happens...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 20 '06 #88

P: n/a
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
[BIG SNIP]
And this concludes my test, and even contains additional "evidence".
You obviously CARE because you post. Riiiiiiiiiiight? The question
is: what exactly is it that you care about?
The *only* think I care about, in this context, is that two people are
carrying on a lengthy discussion that has nothing at all to do with
the C programming language. (It might have something to do with
programming in general; that doesn't make it appropriate for
comp.lang.c.)

To Rod Pemberton *and* Bill Reid:

This entire discussion is off-topic. Each of you obviously thinks
he's right and the other person is wrong. That's not the point.
Please stop discussing whatever it is that you're discussing *in
comp.lang.c*. If only one of you stops posting, the other probably
will as well. If that means letting the other person have the last
word, so be it; sometimes that's the only way to kill an off-topic
thread. I don't know or care which of you is right, so please don't
try to convince me.

If you feel you must continue the discussion, you can either find a
mutually agreeable newsgroup or carry on in e-mail. I don't care
whether you do that or not. I am asking each of you to stop
discussing it here.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 20 '06 #89

P: n/a
Bill Reid said:

<snip>
>
Not only did he not call a halt to the proceedings, he seemed to
want to "egg them on".
Well, no. There is nothing between the lines here. I was simply impressed by
the measured response Rod Pemberton was giving at that point. I don't know
or care enough about the stock market to know whether he was right or
wrong, but he was arguing, it seemed to me, rationally and sensibly.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Oct 20 '06 #90

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:LL********************@bt.com...
Bill Reid said:

<snip>
>>
Not only did he not call a halt to the proceedings, he seemed to
want to "egg them on".

Well, no. There is nothing between the lines here. I was simply impressed
by
the measured response Rod Pemberton was giving at that point. I don't know
or care enough about the stock market to know whether he was right or
wrong, but he was arguing, it seemed to me, rationally and sensibly.
I think that the interesting threads are the ones that get *a little* OT at
times. Continuing on a conversation that has become personal in a bad way
argues for keeping topicality in a straightjacket.

We pretend we're in a room together. If these words were said in a room,
they'd be fightin words, well before the posts reached 17k in length. This
means that the two persons would either fight, or others would say "pipe
down, ladies." Neither party displayed the nobility of walking away.

I love Dr. Charles Shirkey. When asked about the stock market he had only
one response: "buy low, sell high." EC

Oct 20 '06 #91

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Fz*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Wt*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rod Pemberton <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:eh**********@main.corriga.net...
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Ly*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Shorting
and the short interest you see could be simulated by other
executions
services.
>
Uh-oh, I don't like where this is going...man, do you have a hard
head.
Never say die, eh?
>
Of course, shorting is done by brokers, not by exchanges. This is
true of ALL short sales, not just NASDAQ. As far as the exchange
is concerned, it's just another transaction, aside from any member
broker restrictions or SEC rules governing how brokers may implement
short sales.
>
Like I said, I'll look it up someday... Or, you could point me
to the press release on one of NASDAQ websites.

OK, here it is:
>
10/16/2006 (Rootyrs) - In a surprise move, NASDAQ today
announced that brokers may now continue to provide short sale
transactions to customers just as they have since the inception of
NASDAQ in the '70s. There was widespread doubt that they
would continue to allow the popular practice because some
Usenet kook claimed that NASDAQ didn't allow short sales
in a goofy post. In related news, God is considering switching
the period in which the sun shines to nighttime...
>
Amazing, you declare it to be true, me to be false, and yet, the
_simple_
task of posting something proving your truth eludes you... I see why
they
called you "Reidiot": no basis in fact.
OK, you want a "press release", here it is. I got this "press release"
from NASDAQ by typing "NASDAQ short sales" into the "Search"
box of http://www.google.com, and it was the second unsponsered
link (note that all the top links are from the http://www.nasdaq.com
web site which provide the current and historical NASDAQ "short
interest" that you claim doesn't exist). This is something that an
eight-year-old girl could and would do in a matter of seconds to
ascertain a "fact", but seems to completely elude you, you "professional
programmer", you:
WRONG! It doesn't elude me. As I told you, I wasn't interested in looking
it up at the current time. I clarified the timeframe for you at your
request, and I told you I'd look it up at my leisure, but you ruthlessly
continued to pursue this aspect of the conversation. In which case, it's
completely up to you to PROVE your case to me.
http://www.nasdaq.com/newsroom/news/...tion06_113.stm
For more information on NASDAQ Short-Interest positions, including
publication dates, visit www.nasdaqtrader.com/asp/short_interest.asp.
Ten posts later, it appears you finally _may_ have managed to do so. I
still look it up and read it at my leisure.
I've asked you to take this discussion somewhere else more
appropriate...
What discussion? I've tried discussing things with you but, until this last
post, there has only been _insults_ on your part. No discussion. If you
_actually_ want to discuss stocks or companies with me, which you haven't
been interested in so far, you can tell me so here.
Although your "professional programmer" colleagues
<snip>

If you had chosen to discuss stocks or companies, instead of insulting me,
you could've steered the conversation to any number of topics that might've
interested you: Buffet, Trump, Munger, DeBeers, Yukos, etc... I *left*
*the* *door* *open* by not insulting you to the same degree as you did to
me. Normally I would've ripped someone as verbally abusive as you to
shreds. Don't even try to blame me for your alcoholic behavior.
Rod Pemberton
PS. If I wanted to post to misc.invest.stocks, I'd have already subscribed.
Oct 20 '06 #92

P: n/a
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
[snip]
PS. If I wanted to post to misc.invest.stocks, I'd have already subscribed.
If you wanted to post to comp.lang.c, you'd talk about the C
programming language.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 20 '06 #93

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
[snip]
PS. If I wanted to post to misc.invest.stocks, I'd have already
subscribed.
>
If you wanted to post to comp.lang.c, you'd talk about the C
programming language.
I do post to comp.lang.c. I do post about the C language. And, don't even
try to tell me you haven't been involved in any "Off-Topic" posts lately.
I've seen at least four in you joined in on the past month.
Rod Pemberton
Oct 21 '06 #94

P: n/a

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrites:
[snip]
PS. If I wanted to post to misc.invest.stocks, I'd have already
subscribed.
>
One of the surest signs of applied intelligence is the ability to "predict"
the future. I set the "followup to" header of the post to which he
responded
to misc.invest.stocks, but as I surely and correctly predicted, his reply
post never showed up there.

This simple prediction of human behavior made me no money. My
predictions of human FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT TRADING behavior,
on the other hand...
If you wanted to post to comp.lang.c, you'd talk about the C
programming language.
There you go. Mr. Thompson, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
As for this thread, it was ridiculous from the start and degenerated
from there to a point where it isn't even funny anymore, which is the
REAL deal-killer for me...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 23 '06 #95

P: n/a

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:LL********************@bt.com...
Bill Reid said:

<snip>

Not only did he not call a halt to the proceedings, he seemed to
want to "egg them on".

Well, no. There is nothing between the lines here. I was simply impressed
by
the measured response Rod Pemberton was giving at that point. I don't know
or care enough about the stock market to know whether he was right or
wrong, but he was arguing, it seemed to me, rationally and sensibly.
Hmmmm...maybe. Maybe at the time of that post. BIG maybe...

Problem is, even if there might have been "reasonable doubt" at
that point, no "rational" person could conclude anything other than
he is a "classic" Usenet whack job from his later posts. When
confronted with links that disprove what he says, he claims "that
doesn't prove anything", then he goes on a "stalking" expedition to
"prove" he's right by personally slandering his "enemy". He
makes misstatements of fact that can be verified by just by
reading the thread, no "stock market knowledge" needed.
Then when confronted even more links, he claims he will
"check them out at his leisure" after investing a substantial
amount of time stalking, slandering, and presenting yet even
more outrageously incorrect "facts", and outright refuses
to post in the correct group for the topic.

I correctly identified him as a whack job from the get-go,
but I did have the advantage of "stock market knowledge"
that allowed me to realize that he made several misstatements
of fact within the space of a mere paragraph. I know from
long experience that doesn't happen by mere accident or
inadvertance, but as a result of life-long mental pathology.
TRULY rational and reasonable people have either innate
or ingrained "epistomological control" and don't speak
wildly "out of school" on matters of easily verifiable fact...

You seem to think that "special knowledge" is required
to separate the "men from the loons", and that may actually
be true in your case. In my case, since I am much more of
a "people person", I can spot them very quickly just based
on a few generalized behavioral cues...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 25 '06 #96

P: n/a
Bill Reid said:

<snip>
>
You seem to think that "special knowledge" is required
to separate the "men from the loons", and that may actually
be true in your case. In my case, since I am much more of
a "people person", I can spot them very quickly just based
on a few generalized behavioral cues...
I just prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, it reaps
dividends (pun not intended, btw). Sadly, this doesn't happen as often as
I'd like.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Oct 25 '06 #97

P: n/a
"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrites:
[...]
You seem to think that "special knowledge" is required
to separate the "men from the loons", and that may actually
be true in your case. In my case, since I am much more of
a "people person", I can spot them very quickly just based
on a few generalized behavioral cues...
Good for you. Congratulations. Whoop-de-doo. I am in awe of your
loondar.

Now can you *please* go separate the men from the loons somewhere
else? We discuss C here.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Oct 25 '06 #98

P: n/a

"Bill Reid" <ho********@happyhealthy.netwrote in message
news:Pa*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:LL********************@bt.com...
Bill Reid said:

<snip>
>
Not only did he not call a halt to the proceedings, he seemed to
want to "egg them on".
Well, no. There is nothing between the lines here. I was simply
impressed
by
the measured response Rod Pemberton was giving at that point. I don't
know
or care enough about the stock market to know whether he was right or
wrong, but he was arguing, it seemed to me, rationally and sensibly.
Hmmmm...maybe. Maybe at the time of that post. BIG maybe...
Healthfield's statements were correct. My response to your delusions and
self-aggrandizement were controlled and measured.
he is a "classic" Usenet whack job
You can read many informative posts from me on C, assembly, OS development,
MS-DOS, code porting, parsing/lexing, etc. by just searching for them.
I did have the advantage of "stock market knowledge"
Feel free to school us on "stock market knowledge," if you think you have
some. (Try fitting that statement into your MBTI wordlist.) Why are you
afraid to reveal financially useful information to us? Buffett and Trump
both do so. Wouldn't you be happy if you enriched others by helping them to
make money off your ideas? Do you believe your ideas will be devalued and
become worthless if you reveal them?

As I stated, you could've easily shifted the conversation to almost
anything: nature, politics, religion, sex, cars, computers, weapons, C,
engineering, psychology, Buffet, Gates, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, etc., or
perhaps a topic you'd prefer: stocks, business, finance. But, you chose to
forgo the opportunity and continue to do so. Why? Pick one: 1) alcoholic
2) mid-life crisis 3) under-educated 4) under-employed 5) cheap house 6) bad
marriage 7) a life you hate 8) lost money in the stock market 9) scared 10)
just like arguing for the sake of it
TRULY rational and reasonable people have either innate
or ingrained "epistomological control"
BTW, it's epistemological. Perhaps, you rhymed epistemological with
"apostolic" or "pistol"... Was that a "Freudian slip?" Unfortunately, you
aren't interested in epistemology either, or you'd post something I'd be
interested in, just to study my response. Responses to topics of
programming, C, or maybe religion, might provide you with the clarification
you seek. I can't believe you're just checking my correct spellings and
misspellings. If so, there's an abundance of both for you to peruse.

But, until you do post something I'm interested in, you have no power. The
usual definition for power is: the ability to control or influence the
actions of others. But, there is a flaw in that definition. The definition
is exclusively extroverted. But, power is bidirectional. So, it fails to
cover introversion. So, how would one write an introverted definition of
power? An introverted definition of power might be: the ability to prevent
others from influencing or controlling oneself. You've grasped the first.
Now, try the second. Of course, this assumes that you're not already
influencing or controlling yourself by accepting the truth as truth. Given
your self-aggrandizement and total lack of a super-ego, I could see why you
could have a problem with it.
and don't speak
wildly "out of school" on matters of easily verifiable fact...
My statements were fact for the stated time period, clarified at your
request (See how nice I am? Or, at least, how measured and controlled I'm
being when being called lair by an ignoramus.).
since I am much more of
a "people person",
Considering that most of what you posted would qualify as verbal abuse, I'll
declare that to be patently false.
Rod Pemberton

Oct 26 '06 #99

P: n/a

Warning: Follow-ups set to "alt.usenet.kooks", where the whole
"discussion" belonged in the first place...

Elijah Cardon <in*****@invalid.netwrote in message
news:12************@corp.supernews.com...
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:LL********************@bt.com...
Bill Reid said:

<snip>
>
Not only did he not call a halt to the proceedings, he seemed to
want to "egg them on".
Well, no. There is nothing between the lines here. I was simply
impressed
by
the measured response Rod Pemberton was giving at that point. I don't
know
or care enough about the stock market to know whether he was right or
wrong, but he was arguing, it seemed to me, rationally and sensibly.
I think that the interesting threads are the ones that get *a little* OT
at
times.
A LITTLE is the acceptable amount of OT for Usenet discussion groups,
and the "interest" level is inversely proportional to the amount of OT.
Think
what the whole point is of having thousands of separate groups divided
by topics; that imputed purpose CAN'T be served by allowing rampant
OT discussions to occur.

But you can't stop them, so whaddya gonna do? Just accept that
the unmoderated Usenet is far different in current incarnation than
what was envisioned by "altnet" in the 1980s (far lower percentage
of people here with top-secret security clearances, filtered out
at least a few of the kooks?).
Continuing on a conversation that has become personal in a bad way
argues for keeping topicality in a straightjacket.
Ad hominen is always a poor rhetorical device in any event, right
up there with every other logical fallacy...
We pretend we're in a room together. If these words were said in a room,
they'd be fightin words, well before the posts reached 17k in length.
If I called Charles Manson a murderer, he'd probably get "agitated" (he
usually does when called a "murderer", but he's always "agitated" so who
can tell?). Problem is: he's been convicted of first-degree murder, so
he has no "right" to be angry about it. Same with convicted child
molestors,
theives, drunk drivers, et. al.

By the same token, calling a classic Usenet kook a "Usenet kook" is
bound to get a reaction...but said kook gains not one ounce of RATIONAL
dignity by being correctly so labeled, just as the judge who sentenced
Charlie Manson isn't a "dirty dog" for doing so (though Charlie physically
attacked him once in court, that doesn't constitute a "fight").
This
means that the two persons would either fight, or others would say "pipe
down, ladies."
In the case of Charlie Manson, there would never be a "fight", because
the prison guards would jump on him even if he was behind bullet-proof
glass from his "enemy". It's a one-person "fight", maybe it's with God
in the final analysis...
Neither party displayed the nobility of walking away.
Hey, TV reporter needs some good quick cheap ratings, go interview
Charlie Manson. Charlie does his part doing his "crazy act", everybody
is entertained, the people he killed are still dead. Truth is, I LOVE
all the whacky nonsense that comes out of Charlie...but really, it's a
crying shame he got out of the death penalty on a technicality. He
really should just be dead and be done with it, despite his amusing
shenanigans...
I love Dr. Charles Shirkey. When asked about the stock market he had only
one response: "buy low, sell high." EC
Sorry, the discussion was about SHORT SALES, so it should
be "sell high, buy low"...try to stay on topic, please...

---
William Ernest Reid

Oct 27 '06 #100

101 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.