<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_1751201</id>
	<title>Scientists Develop Financial Turing Test</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267213020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>KentuckyFC writes writes to share a new online test that is being touted as the "<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24861/">financial Turing test</a>."  The web-based exercise asks users to distinguish between real and randomly generated financial data.   <i>"Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces. They say that the more efficient it is, the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random. That would appear to give the lie to the widespread belief that humans are unable to tell the difference between financial market returns and, say, a sequence of coin tosses. However, there is good evidence that financial markets are not random (although they do not appear to be predictable either). Now a group of scientists have developed a financial Turing test to find out whether humans can distinguish real financial data from the same data randomly rearranged.  <a href="http://arora.ccs.neu.edu/">Anybody can take the test</a> and the results indicate that humans are actually rather good at this kind of pattern recognition."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KentuckyFC writes writes to share a new online test that is being touted as the " financial Turing test .
" The web-based exercise asks users to distinguish between real and randomly generated financial data .
" Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces .
They say that the more efficient it is , the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random .
That would appear to give the lie to the widespread belief that humans are unable to tell the difference between financial market returns and , say , a sequence of coin tosses .
However , there is good evidence that financial markets are not random ( although they do not appear to be predictable either ) .
Now a group of scientists have developed a financial Turing test to find out whether humans can distinguish real financial data from the same data randomly rearranged .
Anybody can take the test and the results indicate that humans are actually rather good at this kind of pattern recognition .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KentuckyFC writes writes to share a new online test that is being touted as the "financial Turing test.
"  The web-based exercise asks users to distinguish between real and randomly generated financial data.
"Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces.
They say that the more efficient it is, the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random.
That would appear to give the lie to the widespread belief that humans are unable to tell the difference between financial market returns and, say, a sequence of coin tosses.
However, there is good evidence that financial markets are not random (although they do not appear to be predictable either).
Now a group of scientists have developed a financial Turing test to find out whether humans can distinguish real financial data from the same data randomly rearranged.
Anybody can take the test and the results indicate that humans are actually rather good at this kind of pattern recognition.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293588</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1267195740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is a girlfriend?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a girlfriend ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a girlfriend?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620</id>
	<title>Economists ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces.</p></div><p>The market is <i>only</i> efficient within a narrow range of economic activity. When economic activity exceeds the top and bottom ranges you get bubbles and panics - inefficient markets. We see them all the time.</p><p>I really wish economists would stop assuming that for any given economic activity, the conditions and their subsequent results can be extrapolated across the board.  That's why, whether it's the Chicago school or the Keynesians, they can point to data (a selected portion of economic activity) that supports their view, when in fact all schools of economics is correct in their little slice of economic activity and conditions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces.The market is only efficient within a narrow range of economic activity .
When economic activity exceeds the top and bottom ranges you get bubbles and panics - inefficient markets .
We see them all the time.I really wish economists would stop assuming that for any given economic activity , the conditions and their subsequent results can be extrapolated across the board .
That 's why , whether it 's the Chicago school or the Keynesians , they can point to data ( a selected portion of economic activity ) that supports their view , when in fact all schools of economics is correct in their little slice of economic activity and conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces.The market is only efficient within a narrow range of economic activity.
When economic activity exceeds the top and bottom ranges you get bubbles and panics - inefficient markets.
We see them all the time.I really wish economists would stop assuming that for any given economic activity, the conditions and their subsequent results can be extrapolated across the board.
That's why, whether it's the Chicago school or the Keynesians, they can point to data (a selected portion of economic activity) that supports their view, when in fact all schools of economics is correct in their little slice of economic activity and conditions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290962</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267180440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that perhaps they need to develop something related to the Turing test for politicians' interviews.  It sometimes really does just seem like they've memorized a list of vetted, safe responses from their staff and reply with whatever one has the most buzzwords in common with the interviewer's question.  It often sounds a bit like a computer program looking up stock answers to things might respond...with a lack of finding anything in the database returning something like "I'll have to refer to my staff on that".  I'm not that familiar with the theory behind the testing in detail but I wonder if there's a way to analyze conversations that have already taken place (e.g. news interviews) for a "Turingish" rating of sorts.  Yeah, I said "Turingish"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that perhaps they need to develop something related to the Turing test for politicians ' interviews .
It sometimes really does just seem like they 've memorized a list of vetted , safe responses from their staff and reply with whatever one has the most buzzwords in common with the interviewer 's question .
It often sounds a bit like a computer program looking up stock answers to things might respond...with a lack of finding anything in the database returning something like " I 'll have to refer to my staff on that " .
I 'm not that familiar with the theory behind the testing in detail but I wonder if there 's a way to analyze conversations that have already taken place ( e.g .
news interviews ) for a " Turingish " rating of sorts .
Yeah , I said " Turingish " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that perhaps they need to develop something related to the Turing test for politicians' interviews.
It sometimes really does just seem like they've memorized a list of vetted, safe responses from their staff and reply with whatever one has the most buzzwords in common with the interviewer's question.
It often sounds a bit like a computer program looking up stock answers to things might respond...with a lack of finding anything in the database returning something like "I'll have to refer to my staff on that".
I'm not that familiar with the theory behind the testing in detail but I wonder if there's a way to analyze conversations that have already taken place (e.g.
news interviews) for a "Turingish" rating of sorts.
Yeah, I said "Turingish"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31296098</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267276500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... one where arbitrarily small perturbations always lead to arbitrarily large divergence in phase space". You've only described a high gain system. High gain is indeed one characteristic of a chaotic system, but it has other important attributes as well. I also question your "always". Small perturbations at the input can also (unpredictably) result in small divergences at the output - so one might more accurately say that the input range is much smaller than the output range. More broadly, a chaotic system is one in which deterministic (and therefore predictable) inputs result in non-deterministic (and therefore unpredictable) outputs.</p><p>I would also add that even where the input perturbations can be detected above the noise floor you're no better off at prediction (even if you know the deterministic transfer function) as you never really know the starting point of the system. This is the basis of algorithmic pseudo-random number generation, although the algorithms, inputs and initial conditions of real world chaotic systems are astronomically more complex. This is why nobody has ever worked out the theoretical single winning shot in pool that pockets all the balls in the right order. In principle, if you were able to restart the system from exactly same initial conditions, the output would proceed identically, but you can't in the real world as you don't know exactly what those conditions were and they cannot be inferred in retrospect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... one where arbitrarily small perturbations always lead to arbitrarily large divergence in phase space " .
You 've only described a high gain system .
High gain is indeed one characteristic of a chaotic system , but it has other important attributes as well .
I also question your " always " .
Small perturbations at the input can also ( unpredictably ) result in small divergences at the output - so one might more accurately say that the input range is much smaller than the output range .
More broadly , a chaotic system is one in which deterministic ( and therefore predictable ) inputs result in non-deterministic ( and therefore unpredictable ) outputs.I would also add that even where the input perturbations can be detected above the noise floor you 're no better off at prediction ( even if you know the deterministic transfer function ) as you never really know the starting point of the system .
This is the basis of algorithmic pseudo-random number generation , although the algorithms , inputs and initial conditions of real world chaotic systems are astronomically more complex .
This is why nobody has ever worked out the theoretical single winning shot in pool that pockets all the balls in the right order .
In principle , if you were able to restart the system from exactly same initial conditions , the output would proceed identically , but you ca n't in the real world as you do n't know exactly what those conditions were and they can not be inferred in retrospect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... one where arbitrarily small perturbations always lead to arbitrarily large divergence in phase space".
You've only described a high gain system.
High gain is indeed one characteristic of a chaotic system, but it has other important attributes as well.
I also question your "always".
Small perturbations at the input can also (unpredictably) result in small divergences at the output - so one might more accurately say that the input range is much smaller than the output range.
More broadly, a chaotic system is one in which deterministic (and therefore predictable) inputs result in non-deterministic (and therefore unpredictable) outputs.I would also add that even where the input perturbations can be detected above the noise floor you're no better off at prediction (even if you know the deterministic transfer function) as you never really know the starting point of the system.
This is the basis of algorithmic pseudo-random number generation, although the algorithms, inputs and initial conditions of real world chaotic systems are astronomically more complex.
This is why nobody has ever worked out the theoretical single winning shot in pool that pockets all the balls in the right order.
In principle, if you were able to restart the system from exactly same initial conditions, the output would proceed identically, but you can't in the real world as you don't know exactly what those conditions were and they cannot be inferred in retrospect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289584</id>
	<title>Turing Test?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on 2 previews, I failed.  Does that mean I am not human?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on 2 previews , I failed .
Does that mean I am not human ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on 2 previews, I failed.
Does that mean I am not human?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290320</id>
	<title>Bad example</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267177440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generic metformin in is available in the US for $4 for 60 850mg tablets, or less that 7 cents per pill. You example is wrong, but your general point is not -- it is widely known that American pharmaceticals are sold for far less in other countries, even in Canada and Mexico. Basic economics say they should be more expensive elsewhere, due to transportation costs. And of course, the pharma companies due their best to make reimportation of drugs back into the US unlawful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generic metformin in is available in the US for $ 4 for 60 850mg tablets , or less that 7 cents per pill .
You example is wrong , but your general point is not -- it is widely known that American pharmaceticals are sold for far less in other countries , even in Canada and Mexico .
Basic economics say they should be more expensive elsewhere , due to transportation costs .
And of course , the pharma companies due their best to make reimportation of drugs back into the US unlawful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generic metformin in is available in the US for $4 for 60 850mg tablets, or less that 7 cents per pill.
You example is wrong, but your general point is not -- it is widely known that American pharmaceticals are sold for far less in other countries, even in Canada and Mexico.
Basic economics say they should be more expensive elsewhere, due to transportation costs.
And of course, the pharma companies due their best to make reimportation of drugs back into the US unlawful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292764</id>
	<title>Financial markets are complex, not random</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This entire post (and the website discussed) are based on a faulty premise. Financial markets are not random systems. They are "complex systems". In neither case are they reliably predictable. For example, a person can recognize the difference between a snowflake and a random arrangement of ice crystals. That doesn't mean, however, that they can predict what shape the next snowflake will take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire post ( and the website discussed ) are based on a faulty premise .
Financial markets are not random systems .
They are " complex systems " .
In neither case are they reliably predictable .
For example , a person can recognize the difference between a snowflake and a random arrangement of ice crystals .
That does n't mean , however , that they can predict what shape the next snowflake will take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This entire post (and the website discussed) are based on a faulty premise.
Financial markets are not random systems.
They are "complex systems".
In neither case are they reliably predictable.
For example, a person can recognize the difference between a snowflake and a random arrangement of ice crystals.
That doesn't mean, however, that they can predict what shape the next snowflake will take.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290156</id>
	<title>financial advice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267176660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMHO, a more interesting financial turing test would be to distinguish between human and computer-generated financial advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , a more interesting financial turing test would be to distinguish between human and computer-generated financial advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, a more interesting financial turing test would be to distinguish between human and computer-generated financial advice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290564</id>
	<title>Re:not (ever) predictable = random</title>
	<author>SwordsmanLuke</author>
	<datestamp>1267178520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, that's phrased poorly.  What it *should* say is that "markets are not random although they do not appear to be <b>entirely</b> predictable either".<br> <br>No one can 100\% predict the movements of the market - but because it's not actually random, you can predict correctly better than half the time - which means you can make money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , that 's phrased poorly .
What it * should * say is that " markets are not random although they do not appear to be entirely predictable either " .
No one can 100 \ % predict the movements of the market - but because it 's not actually random , you can predict correctly better than half the time - which means you can make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, that's phrased poorly.
What it *should* say is that "markets are not random although they do not appear to be entirely predictable either".
No one can 100\% predict the movements of the market - but because it's not actually random, you can predict correctly better than half the time - which means you can make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289588</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>jackhererUK</author>
	<datestamp>1267217100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It means it follows a recognisable pattern, that can be distinguished from random data after the fact but not predicted in advance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means it follows a recognisable pattern , that can be distinguished from random data after the fact but not predicted in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means it follows a recognisable pattern, that can be distinguished from random data after the fact but not predicted in advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291258</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1267182120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Create an encoding method for algorithms that outputs a graph.  Randomly generate a short algorithm.</p><p>It's not random, because it has a low Kolmogorov complexity (shortest program that outputs the data).  But it's not predictable either, because you don't know *which* simple program it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Create an encoding method for algorithms that outputs a graph .
Randomly generate a short algorithm.It 's not random , because it has a low Kolmogorov complexity ( shortest program that outputs the data ) .
But it 's not predictable either , because you do n't know * which * simple program it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Create an encoding method for algorithms that outputs a graph.
Randomly generate a short algorithm.It's not random, because it has a low Kolmogorov complexity (shortest program that outputs the data).
But it's not predictable either, because you don't know *which* simple program it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289750</id>
	<title>Not What It Appears To Be......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I clicked the link. Instead of a "Financial Turing Test", it looks more like a "Slashdot My Website In Seconds Test".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I clicked the link .
Instead of a " Financial Turing Test " , it looks more like a " Slashdot My Website In Seconds Test " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clicked the link.
Instead of a "Financial Turing Test", it looks more like a "Slashdot My Website In Seconds Test".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1267175340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The market is also inefficient when any participant with more resources uses some of those resources to change the rules of the market to favor that participant.</p><p>For example, the same movie sells in china for 2.49 and in america for 19.99 (often with an english soundtrack for both).  In an efficient market, the movie would be purchased there for 2.49 and sold here for 4.99 making a 100\% profit for someone.  But artificial rules restrict this.</p><p>For example, drugs which are out of patent are sold in India and China for 10 cents a pill but for 33 cents a pill in the united states (example- metformin) and those in patent are sold for about 10 to 50 cents a pill in india and china and for 5.00 a pill in the united states.  (and apparently viagra is much cheaper in canada than the u.s.).  In an efficient market those pills would be purchased, imported, and resold.  But artificial laws prevent this rational activity.</p><p>For example, Microsoft absolutely slaughtered many competitors through illegal monopolistic behaviors (for which it lost many court cases years after the competitors were dead or crippled).  In an efficient market, there would have been other options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The market is also inefficient when any participant with more resources uses some of those resources to change the rules of the market to favor that participant.For example , the same movie sells in china for 2.49 and in america for 19.99 ( often with an english soundtrack for both ) .
In an efficient market , the movie would be purchased there for 2.49 and sold here for 4.99 making a 100 \ % profit for someone .
But artificial rules restrict this.For example , drugs which are out of patent are sold in India and China for 10 cents a pill but for 33 cents a pill in the united states ( example- metformin ) and those in patent are sold for about 10 to 50 cents a pill in india and china and for 5.00 a pill in the united states .
( and apparently viagra is much cheaper in canada than the u.s. ) .
In an efficient market those pills would be purchased , imported , and resold .
But artificial laws prevent this rational activity.For example , Microsoft absolutely slaughtered many competitors through illegal monopolistic behaviors ( for which it lost many court cases years after the competitors were dead or crippled ) .
In an efficient market , there would have been other options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market is also inefficient when any participant with more resources uses some of those resources to change the rules of the market to favor that participant.For example, the same movie sells in china for 2.49 and in america for 19.99 (often with an english soundtrack for both).
In an efficient market, the movie would be purchased there for 2.49 and sold here for 4.99 making a 100\% profit for someone.
But artificial rules restrict this.For example, drugs which are out of patent are sold in India and China for 10 cents a pill but for 33 cents a pill in the united states (example- metformin) and those in patent are sold for about 10 to 50 cents a pill in india and china and for 5.00 a pill in the united states.
(and apparently viagra is much cheaper in canada than the u.s.).
In an efficient market those pills would be purchased, imported, and resold.
But artificial laws prevent this rational activity.For example, Microsoft absolutely slaughtered many competitors through illegal monopolistic behaviors (for which it lost many court cases years after the competitors were dead or crippled).
In an efficient market, there would have been other options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289604</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a chaotic system, but it has certain patterns that seem to repeat.  The thing I noticed after looking at a few, is that the real ones are easily identifiable by the development of resistance and support levels, which technical traders use to find probable entry and exit points.  Basically, the hypothesis is that a group X holds the stock, they tend to have some psychological barrier price in common at which they would sell, and another at which they would buy more, this selling and buying makes it difficult to break through those price points. When it approaches one of those points trading goes up, if something has changed to make the stock more attractive to another group, or to make it less attractive to the group of traders that tends to hold it, it will change hands, and the new investor group will have new barriers.  So over any given time period you will notice a lot of closing stock prices at close to the same level, then a sudden jump, and new level it bounces between, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a chaotic system , but it has certain patterns that seem to repeat .
The thing I noticed after looking at a few , is that the real ones are easily identifiable by the development of resistance and support levels , which technical traders use to find probable entry and exit points .
Basically , the hypothesis is that a group X holds the stock , they tend to have some psychological barrier price in common at which they would sell , and another at which they would buy more , this selling and buying makes it difficult to break through those price points .
When it approaches one of those points trading goes up , if something has changed to make the stock more attractive to another group , or to make it less attractive to the group of traders that tends to hold it , it will change hands , and the new investor group will have new barriers .
So over any given time period you will notice a lot of closing stock prices at close to the same level , then a sudden jump , and new level it bounces between , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a chaotic system, but it has certain patterns that seem to repeat.
The thing I noticed after looking at a few, is that the real ones are easily identifiable by the development of resistance and support levels, which technical traders use to find probable entry and exit points.
Basically, the hypothesis is that a group X holds the stock, they tend to have some psychological barrier price in common at which they would sell, and another at which they would buy more, this selling and buying makes it difficult to break through those price points.
When it approaches one of those points trading goes up, if something has changed to make the stock more attractive to another group, or to make it less attractive to the group of traders that tends to hold it, it will change hands, and the new investor group will have new barriers.
So over any given time period you will notice a lot of closing stock prices at close to the same level, then a sudden jump, and new level it bounces between, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291476</id>
	<title>Re:People don't matter. People are just a host.</title>
	<author>FireIron</author>
	<datestamp>1267183440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly, the money swarm has rejected me as a host carrier...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , the money swarm has rejected me as a host carrier.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, the money swarm has rejected me as a host carrier...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291440</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1267183260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and apparently viagra is much cheaper in canada than the u.s.</p></div><p>
And here I thought that America was full of cheap pricks...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and apparently viagra is much cheaper in canada than the u.s . And here I thought that America was full of cheap pricks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and apparently viagra is much cheaper in canada than the u.s.
And here I thought that America was full of cheap pricks...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289618</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>$RANDOMLUSER</author>
	<datestamp>1267217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;facepalm&gt; Slashdotters!! If you had a goddam girlfriend, you'd <b>know</b> what "not random and not predictable" meant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdotters ! !
If you had a goddam girlfriend , you 'd know what " not random and not predictable " meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Slashdotters!!
If you had a goddam girlfriend, you'd know what "not random and not predictable" meant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292280</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>colonelquesadilla</author>
	<datestamp>1267187760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What always struck me as odd about the "random walk" conjecture is that it seems that if stock prices were random walking they should in the short term follow some sort of normal distribution.  They don't seem to.  Some traders like to use bollinger bands, which place standard deviation lines above and below a moving average.  That always seemed silly to me, since it is well known that stock prices are not even close to following a gaussian distribution.  Furthermore, the whole idea seems to lose sight of the fact that these aren't numbers coming out of the ether, they are being produced by a large number of people, each behaving in different, but somewhat predictable ways.  That makes for a very complex system sure, but not a random one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What always struck me as odd about the " random walk " conjecture is that it seems that if stock prices were random walking they should in the short term follow some sort of normal distribution .
They do n't seem to .
Some traders like to use bollinger bands , which place standard deviation lines above and below a moving average .
That always seemed silly to me , since it is well known that stock prices are not even close to following a gaussian distribution .
Furthermore , the whole idea seems to lose sight of the fact that these are n't numbers coming out of the ether , they are being produced by a large number of people , each behaving in different , but somewhat predictable ways .
That makes for a very complex system sure , but not a random one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What always struck me as odd about the "random walk" conjecture is that it seems that if stock prices were random walking they should in the short term follow some sort of normal distribution.
They don't seem to.
Some traders like to use bollinger bands, which place standard deviation lines above and below a moving average.
That always seemed silly to me, since it is well known that stock prices are not even close to following a gaussian distribution.
Furthermore, the whole idea seems to lose sight of the fact that these aren't numbers coming out of the ether, they are being produced by a large number of people, each behaving in different, but somewhat predictable ways.
That makes for a very complex system sure, but not a random one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290122</id>
	<title>Well, if you look at the graph on the front page</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1267176540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you look at the graph on the front page it becomes bloody obvious. The real data goes up and down, but does so over longer periods, it jitters but there is a direction to its movement overall. While the fake one goes up and down far to randomly, it simply does not look like a stock market result.
</p><p>So yes, within this simple example, I could tell just because I know from years of news exposure what a financial graph tends to look like.
</p><p>But to be honest, I am not sure it means anything. They could just have made the random sample to random. The real turing test is about actually putting some effort in the fake system to make people believe it is real. By this test your would have a turing test program that just reads random words from a dictionary and then ask people if they can spot the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you look at the graph on the front page it becomes bloody obvious .
The real data goes up and down , but does so over longer periods , it jitters but there is a direction to its movement overall .
While the fake one goes up and down far to randomly , it simply does not look like a stock market result .
So yes , within this simple example , I could tell just because I know from years of news exposure what a financial graph tends to look like .
But to be honest , I am not sure it means anything .
They could just have made the random sample to random .
The real turing test is about actually putting some effort in the fake system to make people believe it is real .
By this test your would have a turing test program that just reads random words from a dictionary and then ask people if they can spot the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you look at the graph on the front page it becomes bloody obvious.
The real data goes up and down, but does so over longer periods, it jitters but there is a direction to its movement overall.
While the fake one goes up and down far to randomly, it simply does not look like a stock market result.
So yes, within this simple example, I could tell just because I know from years of news exposure what a financial graph tends to look like.
But to be honest, I am not sure it means anything.
They could just have made the random sample to random.
The real turing test is about actually putting some effort in the fake system to make people believe it is real.
By this test your would have a turing test program that just reads random words from a dictionary and then ask people if they can spot the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708</id>
	<title>not (ever) predictable = random</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1267217640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"markets are not random (although they do not appear to be predictable either)"</p><p>Ummmm. Isn't one of the leading definitions of a "random" process that it is<br>a process which exhibits maximum complexity, and thus is not predictable<br>except by the execution of the identical process. ?</p><p>i.e. "inherently unpredictable by any algorithm simpler than the process itself" = "random"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" markets are not random ( although they do not appear to be predictable either ) " Ummmm .
Is n't one of the leading definitions of a " random " process that it isa process which exhibits maximum complexity , and thus is not predictableexcept by the execution of the identical process .
? i.e. " inherently unpredictable by any algorithm simpler than the process itself " = " random "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"markets are not random (although they do not appear to be predictable either)"Ummmm.
Isn't one of the leading definitions of a "random" process that it isa process which exhibits maximum complexity, and thus is not predictableexcept by the execution of the identical process.
?i.e. "inherently unpredictable by any algorithm simpler than the process itself" = "random"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289530</id>
	<title>Oh Java!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267216740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the test where we have to decide whether to install Java?</p><p>Because I pass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the test where we have to decide whether to install Java ? Because I pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the test where we have to decide whether to install Java?Because I pass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289910</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>hibiki\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1267175520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Traditionally, economists have claimed that stock variations were random, as explained in 'A random walk through Wall Street'. Now, further analysis indicates that the changes of value in stocks are not random at all: If they were, the last couple hundred years worth of financial data would be almost impossible, with extreme oscillations that would only happen once in a billion years in a random model occurring every couple of decades.</p><p>Instead, what some have proposed is that stock oscillations instead follow power law distributions: It still makes it impossible to know what the market will do tomorrow, or next week, but it makes large oscillations a whole lot more common than in a random model. This makes many of the current models that are used to assess how risky a portfolio is into a pile of garbage. For that argument, you could read 'A not so random walk through Wall Street'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditionally , economists have claimed that stock variations were random , as explained in 'A random walk through Wall Street' .
Now , further analysis indicates that the changes of value in stocks are not random at all : If they were , the last couple hundred years worth of financial data would be almost impossible , with extreme oscillations that would only happen once in a billion years in a random model occurring every couple of decades.Instead , what some have proposed is that stock oscillations instead follow power law distributions : It still makes it impossible to know what the market will do tomorrow , or next week , but it makes large oscillations a whole lot more common than in a random model .
This makes many of the current models that are used to assess how risky a portfolio is into a pile of garbage .
For that argument , you could read 'A not so random walk through Wall Street'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditionally, economists have claimed that stock variations were random, as explained in 'A random walk through Wall Street'.
Now, further analysis indicates that the changes of value in stocks are not random at all: If they were, the last couple hundred years worth of financial data would be almost impossible, with extreme oscillations that would only happen once in a billion years in a random model occurring every couple of decades.Instead, what some have proposed is that stock oscillations instead follow power law distributions: It still makes it impossible to know what the market will do tomorrow, or next week, but it makes large oscillations a whole lot more common than in a random model.
This makes many of the current models that are used to assess how risky a portfolio is into a pile of garbage.
For that argument, you could read 'A not so random walk through Wall Street'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290714</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267179240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Slashdotters!! If you had a goddam girlfriend, you'd know what "not random and not predictable" meant.</i></p><p>Wrong. I do have a girlfriend, and she is entirely predictable: I'm wrong &amp; she's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdotters ! !
If you had a goddam girlfriend , you 'd know what " not random and not predictable " meant.Wrong .
I do have a girlfriend , and she is entirely predictable : I 'm wrong &amp; she 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Slashdotters!!
If you had a goddam girlfriend, you'd know what "not random and not predictable" meant.Wrong.
I do have a girlfriend, and she is entirely predictable: I'm wrong &amp; she's right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290260</id>
	<title>"Anybody can take the test"?!?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267177080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean, "anybody <b>could</b> take the test, before the server got slashdotted!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , " anybody could take the test , before the server got slashdotted !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, "anybody could take the test, before the server got slashdotted!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038</id>
	<title>People don't matter. People are just a host.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1267176180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p><p>Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence. The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator. Admittedly the ecology is complex, (dollars, derivatives, bonds, et al.) but the fundamental rules are the same.</p><p>Money want to reproduce. We (our collective cultural awareness) are merely hosts for money to exist.</p><p>Usually, money is symbiotic, benefiting the host and itself. Occasionally, it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts (i.e. tulip manias, compulsive gambling/banking, stock market crashes).</p><p>The delusion here is thinking that we can "control" the economy. The economy (our name for money's ecology), will always, to some degree, be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents. We can garden (i.e. set up nice environments for money to replicate), but direct control is probably a pipe dream). Moreover, money replication isn't free. It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited. Expanding the garden forever isn't an option. Sustaining a nice one probably is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence .
The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator .
Admittedly the ecology is complex , ( dollars , derivatives , bonds , et al .
) but the fundamental rules are the same.Money want to reproduce .
We ( our collective cultural awareness ) are merely hosts for money to exist.Usually , money is symbiotic , benefiting the host and itself .
Occasionally , it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts ( i.e .
tulip manias , compulsive gambling/banking , stock market crashes ) .The delusion here is thinking that we can " control " the economy .
The economy ( our name for money 's ecology ) , will always , to some degree , be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents .
We can garden ( i.e .
set up nice environments for money to replicate ) , but direct control is probably a pipe dream ) .
Moreover , money replication is n't free .
It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited .
Expanding the garden forever is n't an option .
Sustaining a nice one probably is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence.
The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator.
Admittedly the ecology is complex, (dollars, derivatives, bonds, et al.
) but the fundamental rules are the same.Money want to reproduce.
We (our collective cultural awareness) are merely hosts for money to exist.Usually, money is symbiotic, benefiting the host and itself.
Occasionally, it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts (i.e.
tulip manias, compulsive gambling/banking, stock market crashes).The delusion here is thinking that we can "control" the economy.
The economy (our name for money's ecology), will always, to some degree, be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents.
We can garden (i.e.
set up nice environments for money to replicate), but direct control is probably a pipe dream).
Moreover, money replication isn't free.
It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited.
Expanding the garden forever isn't an option.
Sustaining a nice one probably is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289656</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1267217400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the website <a href="http://arora.ccs.neu.edu/" title="neu.edu">http://arora.ccs.neu.edu/</a> [neu.edu]
"We collect data from various sources and we show it to you in two windows,
   - one window plots the actual data,
   - the other plots the data randomly permuted (tech note: we permute the derivative of the data)."
</p><p>So the test is <i>really</i> "can you recognize a natural data set from the same set with a randomly permuted derivative".</p><p>The notion of "randomness" is independent of the statistics of the distribution. And
 since distributions with different statistics usually look quite different whether this is a surprising result depends entirely on what statistical model they have chosen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the website http : //arora.ccs.neu.edu/ [ neu.edu ] " We collect data from various sources and we show it to you in two windows , - one window plots the actual data , - the other plots the data randomly permuted ( tech note : we permute the derivative of the data ) .
" So the test is really " can you recognize a natural data set from the same set with a randomly permuted derivative " .The notion of " randomness " is independent of the statistics of the distribution .
And since distributions with different statistics usually look quite different whether this is a surprising result depends entirely on what statistical model they have chosen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the website http://arora.ccs.neu.edu/ [neu.edu]
"We collect data from various sources and we show it to you in two windows,
   - one window plots the actual data,
   - the other plots the data randomly permuted (tech note: we permute the derivative of the data).
"
So the test is really "can you recognize a natural data set from the same set with a randomly permuted derivative".The notion of "randomness" is independent of the statistics of the distribution.
And
 since distributions with different statistics usually look quite different whether this is a surprising result depends entirely on what statistical model they have chosen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290736</id>
	<title>Random does not neet to be a random walk</title>
	<author>yooy</author>
	<datestamp>1267179420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, it is the year 2010. Everybody knows by now that financial data does not follow a random walk (coin tossing). Stock market variations hat a "fat tail". Unfortunately it is hard to put thins into option pricing (problems with variance). This is actually a reason why far out of the money options are likely to be underpriced.

I think Mandelbrot came up with this decades ago. Welcome to the real world.

I heard more interesting things. Like the Peruvian who did not clone sheep but bacteria. Yea, that's right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , it is the year 2010 .
Everybody knows by now that financial data does not follow a random walk ( coin tossing ) .
Stock market variations hat a " fat tail " .
Unfortunately it is hard to put thins into option pricing ( problems with variance ) .
This is actually a reason why far out of the money options are likely to be underpriced .
I think Mandelbrot came up with this decades ago .
Welcome to the real world .
I heard more interesting things .
Like the Peruvian who did not clone sheep but bacteria .
Yea , that 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, it is the year 2010.
Everybody knows by now that financial data does not follow a random walk (coin tossing).
Stock market variations hat a "fat tail".
Unfortunately it is hard to put thins into option pricing (problems with variance).
This is actually a reason why far out of the money options are likely to be underpriced.
I think Mandelbrot came up with this decades ago.
Welcome to the real world.
I heard more interesting things.
Like the Peruvian who did not clone sheep but bacteria.
Yea, that's right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291416</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, Microsoft absolutely slaughtered many competitors through illegal monopolistic behaviors (for which it lost many court cases years after the competitors were dead or crippled).  In an efficient market, there would have been other options.</p></div><p>That merely points out one of the other flaws in the idea of a "free" market. Nothing succeeds like Success. Sometimes known as "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM^WMicrosoft".</p><p>In engineering terms, this is a positive feedback circuit, and uncontrolled positive feedback is the exact opposite of self-correction. Monopolies exist because people are too greedy to leave well enough alone even when the end result would be the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , Microsoft absolutely slaughtered many competitors through illegal monopolistic behaviors ( for which it lost many court cases years after the competitors were dead or crippled ) .
In an efficient market , there would have been other options.That merely points out one of the other flaws in the idea of a " free " market .
Nothing succeeds like Success .
Sometimes known as " Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM ^ WMicrosoft " .In engineering terms , this is a positive feedback circuit , and uncontrolled positive feedback is the exact opposite of self-correction .
Monopolies exist because people are too greedy to leave well enough alone even when the end result would be the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, Microsoft absolutely slaughtered many competitors through illegal monopolistic behaviors (for which it lost many court cases years after the competitors were dead or crippled).
In an efficient market, there would have been other options.That merely points out one of the other flaws in the idea of a "free" market.
Nothing succeeds like Success.
Sometimes known as "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM^WMicrosoft".In engineering terms, this is a positive feedback circuit, and uncontrolled positive feedback is the exact opposite of self-correction.
Monopolies exist because people are too greedy to leave well enough alone even when the end result would be the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293100</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267192620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This trading thing....</p><p>"all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices"</p><p>I'll correct that for you.</p><p>"What we do is transfer wealth from those who do not intimately understand how markets function to those who have done the work and earned the right to understand, and who additionally behave correctly by obeying the strict protocols the market imposes."</p><p>Hope is irrelevant. A good trader does not hope to make the right choices - they make the right choices by default. This comes from years of experience and an understanding of how all of this is made to operate. As a consequence they absorb wealth from those who trade, but are less informed.</p><p>People trade for a variety of reasons. Some have to trade. Not all people who trade do so to realise a directional profit. There are producers, consumers, hedgers, speculators, arbitragers, etc. There are some who provide a service to those who need to trade, by taking the other side. The successful trader will provide a service to uninformed traders, by standing ready to become buyer to their seller and vice versa when they need to trade.</p><p>The truly expert traders choose to earn their living, if you wish to think in such terms, by becoming proficient in detecting where a market will move next, based on the motivations of certain market participants. Part of this is knowing where the uninformed traders are likely to err, and profiting from that information.</p><p>Futures are zero sum and no "new wealth" is created when a contract expires - shorts must provide delivery, longs take delivery, and everyone else has netted off the exposure and gone flat. No new goods are produced.</p><p>What it provides is a nearly insurmountable challenge which appeals to a certain character. Those with the intelligence, persistence, and discipline will eventually succeed. It is the most efficient way to accumulate wealth when practised correctly, and it yields a certain intellectual satisfaction.</p><p>It is the only profession where results can be achieved in minutes that might otherwise take days of road digging or sheep shearing or other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This trading thing.... " all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices " I 'll correct that for you .
" What we do is transfer wealth from those who do not intimately understand how markets function to those who have done the work and earned the right to understand , and who additionally behave correctly by obeying the strict protocols the market imposes .
" Hope is irrelevant .
A good trader does not hope to make the right choices - they make the right choices by default .
This comes from years of experience and an understanding of how all of this is made to operate .
As a consequence they absorb wealth from those who trade , but are less informed.People trade for a variety of reasons .
Some have to trade .
Not all people who trade do so to realise a directional profit .
There are producers , consumers , hedgers , speculators , arbitragers , etc .
There are some who provide a service to those who need to trade , by taking the other side .
The successful trader will provide a service to uninformed traders , by standing ready to become buyer to their seller and vice versa when they need to trade.The truly expert traders choose to earn their living , if you wish to think in such terms , by becoming proficient in detecting where a market will move next , based on the motivations of certain market participants .
Part of this is knowing where the uninformed traders are likely to err , and profiting from that information.Futures are zero sum and no " new wealth " is created when a contract expires - shorts must provide delivery , longs take delivery , and everyone else has netted off the exposure and gone flat .
No new goods are produced.What it provides is a nearly insurmountable challenge which appeals to a certain character .
Those with the intelligence , persistence , and discipline will eventually succeed .
It is the most efficient way to accumulate wealth when practised correctly , and it yields a certain intellectual satisfaction.It is the only profession where results can be achieved in minutes that might otherwise take days of road digging or sheep shearing or other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This trading thing...."all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices"I'll correct that for you.
"What we do is transfer wealth from those who do not intimately understand how markets function to those who have done the work and earned the right to understand, and who additionally behave correctly by obeying the strict protocols the market imposes.
"Hope is irrelevant.
A good trader does not hope to make the right choices - they make the right choices by default.
This comes from years of experience and an understanding of how all of this is made to operate.
As a consequence they absorb wealth from those who trade, but are less informed.People trade for a variety of reasons.
Some have to trade.
Not all people who trade do so to realise a directional profit.
There are producers, consumers, hedgers, speculators, arbitragers, etc.
There are some who provide a service to those who need to trade, by taking the other side.
The successful trader will provide a service to uninformed traders, by standing ready to become buyer to their seller and vice versa when they need to trade.The truly expert traders choose to earn their living, if you wish to think in such terms, by becoming proficient in detecting where a market will move next, based on the motivations of certain market participants.
Part of this is knowing where the uninformed traders are likely to err, and profiting from that information.Futures are zero sum and no "new wealth" is created when a contract expires - shorts must provide delivery, longs take delivery, and everyone else has netted off the exposure and gone flat.
No new goods are produced.What it provides is a nearly insurmountable challenge which appeals to a certain character.
Those with the intelligence, persistence, and discipline will eventually succeed.
It is the most efficient way to accumulate wealth when practised correctly, and it yields a certain intellectual satisfaction.It is the only profession where results can be achieved in minutes that might otherwise take days of road digging or sheep shearing or other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292162</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267187280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; What does [not random and not predictable] mean?<br><br>It means that while some outcomes are more likely than others, the stock market still surprises even the experts sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What does [ not random and not predictable ] mean ? It means that while some outcomes are more likely than others , the stock market still surprises even the experts sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What does [not random and not predictable] mean?It means that while some outcomes are more likely than others, the stock market still surprises even the experts sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290230</id>
	<title>The moral question is thus proposed;</title>
	<author>Maintenance Goof</author>
	<datestamp>1267177020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I cannot predict a market, do I then, no longer have the right to kill the market?  Does this mean that Wall Street is not only by results and facts, but by definition evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I can not predict a market , do I then , no longer have the right to kill the market ?
Does this mean that Wall Street is not only by results and facts , but by definition evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I cannot predict a market, do I then, no longer have the right to kill the market?
Does this mean that Wall Street is not only by results and facts, but by definition evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290674</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1267179120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, in a statistics class I had once, half the class was assigned to make up "random number" lists, and the other half actually generated a random number list using actual randomly generated numbers (by using dice). It was very easy to tell which were made by people, becasue as you stated, there were not enough repeating sequences as in the truly random ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , in a statistics class I had once , half the class was assigned to make up " random number " lists , and the other half actually generated a random number list using actual randomly generated numbers ( by using dice ) .
It was very easy to tell which were made by people , becasue as you stated , there were not enough repeating sequences as in the truly random ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, in a statistics class I had once, half the class was assigned to make up "random number" lists, and the other half actually generated a random number list using actual randomly generated numbers (by using dice).
It was very easy to tell which were made by people, becasue as you stated, there were not enough repeating sequences as in the truly random ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290478</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1267178100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fractal patterns- a line graph over a long period can be decomposed into a base pattern that is repeated at different amplitudes at different frequencies (hourly, daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, annual quarters, yearly). Such analysis can be used to synthesize patterns such as music instruments (audio grains) ocean waves, cloud patterns (Perlin textures), and terrain (fractal landscapes). For 2D and higher, these ratios can vary according to direction as well.</p><p>It might be that different traders have different buying/selling patterns, and that these are all superimposed on top of each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fractal patterns- a line graph over a long period can be decomposed into a base pattern that is repeated at different amplitudes at different frequencies ( hourly , daily , weekly , fortnightly , monthly , annual quarters , yearly ) .
Such analysis can be used to synthesize patterns such as music instruments ( audio grains ) ocean waves , cloud patterns ( Perlin textures ) , and terrain ( fractal landscapes ) .
For 2D and higher , these ratios can vary according to direction as well.It might be that different traders have different buying/selling patterns , and that these are all superimposed on top of each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fractal patterns- a line graph over a long period can be decomposed into a base pattern that is repeated at different amplitudes at different frequencies (hourly, daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, annual quarters, yearly).
Such analysis can be used to synthesize patterns such as music instruments (audio grains) ocean waves, cloud patterns (Perlin textures), and terrain (fractal landscapes).
For 2D and higher, these ratios can vary according to direction as well.It might be that different traders have different buying/selling patterns, and that these are all superimposed on top of each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290210</id>
	<title>Much more interesting question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267176900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A much more interesting question: Is the financial system turing capable? If yes, one could use the financial system to compute stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A much more interesting question : Is the financial system turing capable ?
If yes , one could use the financial system to compute stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A much more interesting question: Is the financial system turing capable?
If yes, one could use the financial system to compute stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290932</id>
	<title>technical analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267180320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>looking for technical patterns, trends, and lines of support and resistance, i was much less accurate than i thought i would be. but the timer certainly didn't help. if i had more time to look at the charts, i think i would be better able to tell which chart ignored the "rules" of technical analysis more often. perhaps? it would be interesting to see how they generated their "random" charts. i'm starting to doubt my ability to read charts now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>looking for technical patterns , trends , and lines of support and resistance , i was much less accurate than i thought i would be .
but the timer certainly did n't help .
if i had more time to look at the charts , i think i would be better able to tell which chart ignored the " rules " of technical analysis more often .
perhaps ? it would be interesting to see how they generated their " random " charts .
i 'm starting to doubt my ability to read charts now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looking for technical patterns, trends, and lines of support and resistance, i was much less accurate than i thought i would be.
but the timer certainly didn't help.
if i had more time to look at the charts, i think i would be better able to tell which chart ignored the "rules" of technical analysis more often.
perhaps? it would be interesting to see how they generated their "random" charts.
i'm starting to doubt my ability to read charts now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293034</id>
	<title>Re:not (ever) predictable = random</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267192140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on whose definition of "random" you use.<br><br>Mathematicians and computer scientists generally (and statisticians always) define random as "any given result is as likely as any other", which is not entirely the same thing as merely "unpredictable".  For example, in cryptography, mere unpredictability is adequate for most purposes, but such series are not considered to be truly (mathematically) random, hence the term "pseudorandom".<br><br>Normal people on the street (i.e., laypersons when it comes to mathematics) generally define "random" in a way that is closer to what a statistician would call an \_even\_ distribution, but with additional constraints.  For example, if a series of thirty integers between 1 and 10 starts with 1, it's not fully "random".  If it ends with 10, it's not fully "random".  If it contains an ascending sequence of three adjascent numbers anywhere within it, most people would say that it is "not very random".<br><br>Similarly, if the "random" option on a "show my photos" screensaver picks the same picture twice in five minutes when there are fifteen minutes' worth of photos, it's "not random enough", and the software should be programmed to avoid this so as to keep the selection "random".  The same logic applies to "random" playlist generation.  Mathematically speaking, constraining a sequence in these kinds of ways makes it \_less\_ random (since it makes some outcomes much more unlikely than others, if not outright impossible), but most people will perceive the result as \_more\_ random, because they're not using the mathematicians' definition of "random".<br><br>This is one reason why the option is often called "shuffle" instead of "random".  Programmers are uncomfortable using the word "random" to describe the kind of randomness users want.  Personally, I wrote my own playlist generation algorithm, and it is extensively non-random.  It goes out of its way to switch between genres as often as possible (after every track isn't possible, because more than half of my collection is baroque; but it switches genres as often as it can), and to mix up each genre so that the next track from the same genre will be by a different artist or composer, and to mix up each artist or composer so that the next track by the same guy will be a different song, preferably from a different album.  Additionally, it plays any given track significantly more often if I've given it a higher rating.  I know that the algorithm is very deterministic and entirely non-random, because I wrote it.  There isn't a single call to rand() in there anywhere.  My family, however, would certainly describe the resulting playlist as "random", because the songs are all mixed up.  It never plays the same kind of thing twice in a row, ever.  In other words, it fits the layman's definition of "random".<br><br>So yeah, there are different ideas about what "random" means.<br><br>Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the word "random", without further qualification, is too ambiguous and unclear to be very useful, and so I have begun to make an effort to substitute other words and phrases whenever possible.  If I mean that a given value was chosen for no particular reason other than that one needed to be chosen, I say "arbitrary".  If I mean "cryptographically secure", I say that.  (Of course, there are different levels of cryptographic security.  But at least you know exactly what \_kind\_ of randomness I'm talking about.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on whose definition of " random " you use.Mathematicians and computer scientists generally ( and statisticians always ) define random as " any given result is as likely as any other " , which is not entirely the same thing as merely " unpredictable " .
For example , in cryptography , mere unpredictability is adequate for most purposes , but such series are not considered to be truly ( mathematically ) random , hence the term " pseudorandom " .Normal people on the street ( i.e. , laypersons when it comes to mathematics ) generally define " random " in a way that is closer to what a statistician would call an \ _even \ _ distribution , but with additional constraints .
For example , if a series of thirty integers between 1 and 10 starts with 1 , it 's not fully " random " .
If it ends with 10 , it 's not fully " random " .
If it contains an ascending sequence of three adjascent numbers anywhere within it , most people would say that it is " not very random " .Similarly , if the " random " option on a " show my photos " screensaver picks the same picture twice in five minutes when there are fifteen minutes ' worth of photos , it 's " not random enough " , and the software should be programmed to avoid this so as to keep the selection " random " .
The same logic applies to " random " playlist generation .
Mathematically speaking , constraining a sequence in these kinds of ways makes it \ _less \ _ random ( since it makes some outcomes much more unlikely than others , if not outright impossible ) , but most people will perceive the result as \ _more \ _ random , because they 're not using the mathematicians ' definition of " random " .This is one reason why the option is often called " shuffle " instead of " random " .
Programmers are uncomfortable using the word " random " to describe the kind of randomness users want .
Personally , I wrote my own playlist generation algorithm , and it is extensively non-random .
It goes out of its way to switch between genres as often as possible ( after every track is n't possible , because more than half of my collection is baroque ; but it switches genres as often as it can ) , and to mix up each genre so that the next track from the same genre will be by a different artist or composer , and to mix up each artist or composer so that the next track by the same guy will be a different song , preferably from a different album .
Additionally , it plays any given track significantly more often if I 've given it a higher rating .
I know that the algorithm is very deterministic and entirely non-random , because I wrote it .
There is n't a single call to rand ( ) in there anywhere .
My family , however , would certainly describe the resulting playlist as " random " , because the songs are all mixed up .
It never plays the same kind of thing twice in a row , ever .
In other words , it fits the layman 's definition of " random " .So yeah , there are different ideas about what " random " means.Personally , I have come to the conclusion that the word " random " , without further qualification , is too ambiguous and unclear to be very useful , and so I have begun to make an effort to substitute other words and phrases whenever possible .
If I mean that a given value was chosen for no particular reason other than that one needed to be chosen , I say " arbitrary " .
If I mean " cryptographically secure " , I say that .
( Of course , there are different levels of cryptographic security .
But at least you know exactly what \ _kind \ _ of randomness I 'm talking about .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on whose definition of "random" you use.Mathematicians and computer scientists generally (and statisticians always) define random as "any given result is as likely as any other", which is not entirely the same thing as merely "unpredictable".
For example, in cryptography, mere unpredictability is adequate for most purposes, but such series are not considered to be truly (mathematically) random, hence the term "pseudorandom".Normal people on the street (i.e., laypersons when it comes to mathematics) generally define "random" in a way that is closer to what a statistician would call an \_even\_ distribution, but with additional constraints.
For example, if a series of thirty integers between 1 and 10 starts with 1, it's not fully "random".
If it ends with 10, it's not fully "random".
If it contains an ascending sequence of three adjascent numbers anywhere within it, most people would say that it is "not very random".Similarly, if the "random" option on a "show my photos" screensaver picks the same picture twice in five minutes when there are fifteen minutes' worth of photos, it's "not random enough", and the software should be programmed to avoid this so as to keep the selection "random".
The same logic applies to "random" playlist generation.
Mathematically speaking, constraining a sequence in these kinds of ways makes it \_less\_ random (since it makes some outcomes much more unlikely than others, if not outright impossible), but most people will perceive the result as \_more\_ random, because they're not using the mathematicians' definition of "random".This is one reason why the option is often called "shuffle" instead of "random".
Programmers are uncomfortable using the word "random" to describe the kind of randomness users want.
Personally, I wrote my own playlist generation algorithm, and it is extensively non-random.
It goes out of its way to switch between genres as often as possible (after every track isn't possible, because more than half of my collection is baroque; but it switches genres as often as it can), and to mix up each genre so that the next track from the same genre will be by a different artist or composer, and to mix up each artist or composer so that the next track by the same guy will be a different song, preferably from a different album.
Additionally, it plays any given track significantly more often if I've given it a higher rating.
I know that the algorithm is very deterministic and entirely non-random, because I wrote it.
There isn't a single call to rand() in there anywhere.
My family, however, would certainly describe the resulting playlist as "random", because the songs are all mixed up.
It never plays the same kind of thing twice in a row, ever.
In other words, it fits the layman's definition of "random".So yeah, there are different ideas about what "random" means.Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the word "random", without further qualification, is too ambiguous and unclear to be very useful, and so I have begun to make an effort to substitute other words and phrases whenever possible.
If I mean that a given value was chosen for no particular reason other than that one needed to be chosen, I say "arbitrary".
If I mean "cryptographically secure", I say that.
(Of course, there are different levels of cryptographic security.
But at least you know exactly what \_kind\_ of randomness I'm talking about.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289868</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1267175280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A chaotic system is one where arbitrarily small perturbations always lead to arbitrarily large divergence in phase space. What this means is that even though a system might be following a completely causal underlying law of behavior, it still cannot be predicted because it would require having infinitely accurate knowledge of the parameters.</p><p>Because measuring apparatus always involves noise, and noise is of some finite value, this means that the arbitrarily small (yet IMPORTANT) perturbations cannot be resolved against the noise background. This places a very limited time window on your ability to make predictions.</p><p>Basic examples of this are the Lorenz attractor, the chaotic pendulum, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A chaotic system is one where arbitrarily small perturbations always lead to arbitrarily large divergence in phase space .
What this means is that even though a system might be following a completely causal underlying law of behavior , it still can not be predicted because it would require having infinitely accurate knowledge of the parameters.Because measuring apparatus always involves noise , and noise is of some finite value , this means that the arbitrarily small ( yet IMPORTANT ) perturbations can not be resolved against the noise background .
This places a very limited time window on your ability to make predictions.Basic examples of this are the Lorenz attractor , the chaotic pendulum , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A chaotic system is one where arbitrarily small perturbations always lead to arbitrarily large divergence in phase space.
What this means is that even though a system might be following a completely causal underlying law of behavior, it still cannot be predicted because it would require having infinitely accurate knowledge of the parameters.Because measuring apparatus always involves noise, and noise is of some finite value, this means that the arbitrarily small (yet IMPORTANT) perturbations cannot be resolved against the noise background.
This places a very limited time window on your ability to make predictions.Basic examples of this are the Lorenz attractor, the chaotic pendulum, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289934</id>
	<title>That DOES NOT mean financial data is not random...</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1267175700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could mean that we humans are good distinguishing among different random patterns, but the fact we can do that says nothing about the randomnes of the series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could mean that we humans are good distinguishing among different random patterns , but the fact we can do that says nothing about the randomnes of the series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could mean that we humans are good distinguishing among different random patterns, but the fact we can do that says nothing about the randomnes of the series.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292514</id>
	<title>Re:People don't matter. People are just a host.</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1267188960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.</p><p>In the garden.</p><p>Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.</p><p>Spring and summer.</p><p>Yes.</p><p>Then fall and winter.</p><p>Yes....</p><p><i>Life.. is a state of mind.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the roots are not severed , all is well .
And all will be well in the garden.In the garden.Yes .
In the garden , growth has it seasons .
First comes spring and summer , but then we have fall and winter .
And then we get spring and summer again.Spring and summer.Yes.Then fall and winter.Yes....Life.. is a state of mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the roots are not severed, all is well.
And all will be well in the garden.In the garden.Yes.
In the garden, growth has it seasons.
First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter.
And then we get spring and summer again.Spring and summer.Yes.Then fall and winter.Yes....Life.. is a state of mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291860</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not predictable in advance? Nonsense. Ask any good derivatives trader...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not predictable in advance ?
Nonsense. Ask any good derivatives trader.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not predictable in advance?
Nonsense. Ask any good derivatives trader...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290896</id>
	<title>Re:People don't matter. People are just a host.</title>
	<author>mejogid</author>
	<datestamp>1267180140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your analogy does nothing but complicate financial markets.  There's also no real consistency in your argument - you seem to be using vague and increasingly baseless environmental analogies that have no real connection to each other.   Your last two sentences in particular also seem to have no real relevance to the earth as a system, economic or environmental, due to the input of the sun's energy and the potential for exploitation of resources within and external to the earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy does nothing but complicate financial markets .
There 's also no real consistency in your argument - you seem to be using vague and increasingly baseless environmental analogies that have no real connection to each other .
Your last two sentences in particular also seem to have no real relevance to the earth as a system , economic or environmental , due to the input of the sun 's energy and the potential for exploitation of resources within and external to the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy does nothing but complicate financial markets.
There's also no real consistency in your argument - you seem to be using vague and increasingly baseless environmental analogies that have no real connection to each other.
Your last two sentences in particular also seem to have no real relevance to the earth as a system, economic or environmental, due to the input of the sun's energy and the potential for exploitation of resources within and external to the earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289930</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267175700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It means that while its not based on pure randomness, the scope and breadth of the object in question are too large to simulate or emulate in a way that allows us to predict whats going to happen.</p><p>Its like a weather pattern.</p><p>Both are not random, and are entirely predictable.   We are just unable to predict either because we don't have the processing power or the monitoring power to know enough about what we are trying to simulate to accurately predict the outcome.  There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle for us to predict, but patterns are apparent and in hindsight, most of the things could have been seen if we had the right focal point and indicators to work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It means that while its not based on pure randomness , the scope and breadth of the object in question are too large to simulate or emulate in a way that allows us to predict whats going to happen.Its like a weather pattern.Both are not random , and are entirely predictable .
We are just unable to predict either because we do n't have the processing power or the monitoring power to know enough about what we are trying to simulate to accurately predict the outcome .
There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle for us to predict , but patterns are apparent and in hindsight , most of the things could have been seen if we had the right focal point and indicators to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means that while its not based on pure randomness, the scope and breadth of the object in question are too large to simulate or emulate in a way that allows us to predict whats going to happen.Its like a weather pattern.Both are not random, and are entirely predictable.
We are just unable to predict either because we don't have the processing power or the monitoring power to know enough about what we are trying to simulate to accurately predict the outcome.
There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle for us to predict, but patterns are apparent and in hindsight, most of the things could have been seen if we had the right focal point and indicators to work with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267182120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood this trading thing. Basically, all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices. However by making money, you are causing somebody else to lose money. All-in-all the global system doesn't make or lose any money unless somebody adds more product thereby reducing the worth of the same product already in the hands of somebody else.</p><p>I also don't know how doing bad things here can cause the markets to crash. You either have stock or you don't, selling stuff you don't have should be impossible because the market should keep track of what each person has. If all-of-a-sudden there is a major increase in money going around for a certain product without anyone actually producing the product (a so-called bubble) it should be clearly visible.</p><p>Anyway, maybe I'm ignorant but for some reason, some people get rich off it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood this trading thing .
Basically , all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices .
However by making money , you are causing somebody else to lose money .
All-in-all the global system does n't make or lose any money unless somebody adds more product thereby reducing the worth of the same product already in the hands of somebody else.I also do n't know how doing bad things here can cause the markets to crash .
You either have stock or you do n't , selling stuff you do n't have should be impossible because the market should keep track of what each person has .
If all-of-a-sudden there is a major increase in money going around for a certain product without anyone actually producing the product ( a so-called bubble ) it should be clearly visible.Anyway , maybe I 'm ignorant but for some reason , some people get rich off it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood this trading thing.
Basically, all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices.
However by making money, you are causing somebody else to lose money.
All-in-all the global system doesn't make or lose any money unless somebody adds more product thereby reducing the worth of the same product already in the hands of somebody else.I also don't know how doing bad things here can cause the markets to crash.
You either have stock or you don't, selling stuff you don't have should be impossible because the market should keep track of what each person has.
If all-of-a-sudden there is a major increase in money going around for a certain product without anyone actually producing the product (a so-called bubble) it should be clearly visible.Anyway, maybe I'm ignorant but for some reason, some people get rich off it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289944</id>
	<title>Re:not (ever) predictable = random</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267175820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ummmm. Isn't one of the leading definitions of a "random" process that it is<br>a process which exhibits maximum complexity, and thus is not predictable<br>except by the execution of the identical process. ?</p></div><p>Yes it is.  So what?</p><p>You've pointed out that randomness implies unpredictability.</p><p>You seem to be asking about how non-random data can be unpredictable, which is an unrelated question.</p><p>A =&gt; B does not mean !A =&gt; !B.</p><p>Everyone in Canada has decent health care.  That is completely unrelated to the question of whether anyone in the United States or France or Australia (that is, people who are not in Canada) has decent health care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummmm .
Is n't one of the leading definitions of a " random " process that it isa process which exhibits maximum complexity , and thus is not predictableexcept by the execution of the identical process .
? Yes it is .
So what ? You 've pointed out that randomness implies unpredictability.You seem to be asking about how non-random data can be unpredictable , which is an unrelated question.A = &gt; B does not mean ! A = &gt; ! B.Everyone in Canada has decent health care .
That is completely unrelated to the question of whether anyone in the United States or France or Australia ( that is , people who are not in Canada ) has decent health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummmm.
Isn't one of the leading definitions of a "random" process that it isa process which exhibits maximum complexity, and thus is not predictableexcept by the execution of the identical process.
?Yes it is.
So what?You've pointed out that randomness implies unpredictability.You seem to be asking about how non-random data can be unpredictable, which is an unrelated question.A =&gt; B does not mean !A =&gt; !B.Everyone in Canada has decent health care.
That is completely unrelated to the question of whether anyone in the United States or France or Australia (that is, people who are not in Canada) has decent health care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290076</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267176300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask a human to write a series of 100 numbers, picking them "at random" between 1 and 10, you're going to get a list of numbers that has measurably different characteristics than purely random data.  In particular, you'll tend to get much too few repeating sequences.  It's still not predictable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask a human to write a series of 100 numbers , picking them " at random " between 1 and 10 , you 're going to get a list of numbers that has measurably different characteristics than purely random data .
In particular , you 'll tend to get much too few repeating sequences .
It 's still not predictable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask a human to write a series of 100 numbers, picking them "at random" between 1 and 10, you're going to get a list of numbers that has measurably different characteristics than purely random data.
In particular, you'll tend to get much too few repeating sequences.
It's still not predictable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293420</id>
	<title>nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267194660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not run the generated numbers of that algo through the financial news and stock exchange servers. Maybe that would lead to better results than let Ben Bernanky run the dollar down by his frantic freaky evil moneyprinter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not run the generated numbers of that algo through the financial news and stock exchange servers .
Maybe that would lead to better results than let Ben Bernanky run the dollar down by his frantic freaky evil moneyprinter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not run the generated numbers of that algo through the financial news and stock exchange servers.
Maybe that would lead to better results than let Ben Bernanky run the dollar down by his frantic freaky evil moneyprinter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291900</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1267185900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a couple of things you're missing:</p><p>1. There is money pumped into the system from outside.  When you buy a stock, you're really investing in a company that makes things that (hopefully) people want.  You may not be investing in the company directly, but by purchasing it from somebody who did, you're making the initial investment possible.</p><p>So it's not a zero-sum game.  You're making money available to people who make stuff.  If you think that's worthless, try starting a company some time without borrowing money somehow.</p><p>2. You can sell stuff you don't have by borrowing it from other people.  There's nothing wrong with that: you're paying for the privilege.</p><p>You can also make a promise to sell it without even borrowing it first, assuming you can get your hands on it before the deal actually concludes.  That kind of "naked short" is considerably more dangerous, because it's completely unconstrained, and that IS forbidden.</p><p>People do make all sorts of bad choices; some of them do play the stock market as if it were some kind of lottery.  Those people lose money.  Smart people, however, can generally make money by putting it where it's needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a couple of things you 're missing : 1 .
There is money pumped into the system from outside .
When you buy a stock , you 're really investing in a company that makes things that ( hopefully ) people want .
You may not be investing in the company directly , but by purchasing it from somebody who did , you 're making the initial investment possible.So it 's not a zero-sum game .
You 're making money available to people who make stuff .
If you think that 's worthless , try starting a company some time without borrowing money somehow.2 .
You can sell stuff you do n't have by borrowing it from other people .
There 's nothing wrong with that : you 're paying for the privilege.You can also make a promise to sell it without even borrowing it first , assuming you can get your hands on it before the deal actually concludes .
That kind of " naked short " is considerably more dangerous , because it 's completely unconstrained , and that IS forbidden.People do make all sorts of bad choices ; some of them do play the stock market as if it were some kind of lottery .
Those people lose money .
Smart people , however , can generally make money by putting it where it 's needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a couple of things you're missing:1.
There is money pumped into the system from outside.
When you buy a stock, you're really investing in a company that makes things that (hopefully) people want.
You may not be investing in the company directly, but by purchasing it from somebody who did, you're making the initial investment possible.So it's not a zero-sum game.
You're making money available to people who make stuff.
If you think that's worthless, try starting a company some time without borrowing money somehow.2.
You can sell stuff you don't have by borrowing it from other people.
There's nothing wrong with that: you're paying for the privilege.You can also make a promise to sell it without even borrowing it first, assuming you can get your hands on it before the deal actually concludes.
That kind of "naked short" is considerably more dangerous, because it's completely unconstrained, and that IS forbidden.People do make all sorts of bad choices; some of them do play the stock market as if it were some kind of lottery.
Those people lose money.
Smart people, however, can generally make money by putting it where it's needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292910</id>
	<title>Re:Economics ...p=r-c</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1267191300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***Drugs, i.e. medicines, are highly regulated for efficacy &amp; safety. The US FDA tests drugs and passes that cost onto the manufacturer, who passes it onto the patient (consumer). Once the Chinese &amp; Indian consumers get the off-patent versions, years of data show the drugs to be safe, which lowers insurance costs to the manufacturer.***</p><p>Very plausible, but not actually correct I think.  The FDA does not test drugs.  The pharmaceutical companies test the drugs then try to persuade the FDA and it's overseas equivalents like the EMA (European Medicines Agency) to approve the drugs.  Costs are higher in the US than elsewhere where national health programs are able to negotiate reduced costs whereas our enlightened conservative lawmakers who are dumber than a sack of rocks think that the free market will somehow reduce costs without a comparable negotiating organization to represent 300,000,000 American consumers.</p><p>As far as I can tell drug makers don't buy liability insurance.  They self insure.  But it probably doesn't much matter.  If the drug maker screws up badly enough to end up in court, somebody will pay, and eventually that's probably the greatest available fool -- the American consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * Drugs , i.e .
medicines , are highly regulated for efficacy &amp; safety .
The US FDA tests drugs and passes that cost onto the manufacturer , who passes it onto the patient ( consumer ) .
Once the Chinese &amp; Indian consumers get the off-patent versions , years of data show the drugs to be safe , which lowers insurance costs to the manufacturer .
* * * Very plausible , but not actually correct I think .
The FDA does not test drugs .
The pharmaceutical companies test the drugs then try to persuade the FDA and it 's overseas equivalents like the EMA ( European Medicines Agency ) to approve the drugs .
Costs are higher in the US than elsewhere where national health programs are able to negotiate reduced costs whereas our enlightened conservative lawmakers who are dumber than a sack of rocks think that the free market will somehow reduce costs without a comparable negotiating organization to represent 300,000,000 American consumers.As far as I can tell drug makers do n't buy liability insurance .
They self insure .
But it probably does n't much matter .
If the drug maker screws up badly enough to end up in court , somebody will pay , and eventually that 's probably the greatest available fool -- the American consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***Drugs, i.e.
medicines, are highly regulated for efficacy &amp; safety.
The US FDA tests drugs and passes that cost onto the manufacturer, who passes it onto the patient (consumer).
Once the Chinese &amp; Indian consumers get the off-patent versions, years of data show the drugs to be safe, which lowers insurance costs to the manufacturer.
***Very plausible, but not actually correct I think.
The FDA does not test drugs.
The pharmaceutical companies test the drugs then try to persuade the FDA and it's overseas equivalents like the EMA (European Medicines Agency) to approve the drugs.
Costs are higher in the US than elsewhere where national health programs are able to negotiate reduced costs whereas our enlightened conservative lawmakers who are dumber than a sack of rocks think that the free market will somehow reduce costs without a comparable negotiating organization to represent 300,000,000 American consumers.As far as I can tell drug makers don't buy liability insurance.
They self insure.
But it probably doesn't much matter.
If the drug maker screws up badly enough to end up in court, somebody will pay, and eventually that's probably the greatest available fool -- the American consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290920</id>
	<title>Re:Key is Jumps</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1267180260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The moral if this story is that 99\% of normal probability theory does not easily apply to financial time series data.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>
Just remember that in most economic theories, the real world often turns out to be a special case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moral if this story is that 99 \ % of normal probability theory does not easily apply to financial time series data .
Just remember that in most economic theories , the real world often turns out to be a special case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moral if this story is that 99\% of normal probability theory does not easily apply to financial time series data.
Just remember that in most economic theories, the real world often turns out to be a special case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289652</id>
	<title>Key is Jumps</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1267217400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend of mine actually came up with this test a few months ago and sent an email around with 8 series to see if people could spot real data from randomised ones (Maybe it got chained on to a wider audience).</p><p>The key to the test is that random walks typically don't undergo large jumps or oscillations. In fact, they're generally quite a bit smoother than real data. I see that TFA comes to more or less the same conclusion(I think).</p><p>The moral if this story is that 99\% of normal probability theory does not easily apply to financial time series data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine actually came up with this test a few months ago and sent an email around with 8 series to see if people could spot real data from randomised ones ( Maybe it got chained on to a wider audience ) .The key to the test is that random walks typically do n't undergo large jumps or oscillations .
In fact , they 're generally quite a bit smoother than real data .
I see that TFA comes to more or less the same conclusion ( I think ) .The moral if this story is that 99 \ % of normal probability theory does not easily apply to financial time series data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine actually came up with this test a few months ago and sent an email around with 8 series to see if people could spot real data from randomised ones (Maybe it got chained on to a wider audience).The key to the test is that random walks typically don't undergo large jumps or oscillations.
In fact, they're generally quite a bit smoother than real data.
I see that TFA comes to more or less the same conclusion(I think).The moral if this story is that 99\% of normal probability theory does not easily apply to financial time series data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290536</id>
	<title>Not predictable?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267178400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, lots of noise at the daily level, but beyond that the signals emerge.</p><p>e.g.</p><p>ftse 100<br><a href="http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=" title="yahoo.com">http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=</a> [yahoo.com]^FTSE&amp;t=my&amp;l=on&amp;z=m&amp;q=l&amp;c=</p><p>dow jones<br><a href="http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=" title="yahoo.com">http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=</a> [yahoo.com]^DJI&amp;t=my&amp;l=on&amp;z=m&amp;q=l&amp;c=</p><p>The markets are powered primarily by inflation (forget CPI figures, they're heavily manipulated to look good, look at credit creation). August 15th 1971, the fundamental nature of money changed, debt became money, debt pays interest. Expansion in credit loaned into existence (by banks) is followed by collapse because of the interest. You should also take a look at interest rates over the period (couldn't find an online chart).</p><p>We've been living on bubbles for the last 30 years (there are many smaller credit bubbles in the charts before that), and will continue to do so until the money men lose their influence with the state... It's been 300 years in the UK so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , lots of noise at the daily level , but beyond that the signals emerge.e.g.ftse 100http : //uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc ? s = [ yahoo.com ] ^ FTSE&amp;t = my&amp;l = on&amp;z = m&amp;q = l&amp;c = dow joneshttp : //uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc ? s = [ yahoo.com ] ^ DJI&amp;t = my&amp;l = on&amp;z = m&amp;q = l&amp;c = The markets are powered primarily by inflation ( forget CPI figures , they 're heavily manipulated to look good , look at credit creation ) .
August 15th 1971 , the fundamental nature of money changed , debt became money , debt pays interest .
Expansion in credit loaned into existence ( by banks ) is followed by collapse because of the interest .
You should also take a look at interest rates over the period ( could n't find an online chart ) .We 've been living on bubbles for the last 30 years ( there are many smaller credit bubbles in the charts before that ) , and will continue to do so until the money men lose their influence with the state... It 's been 300 years in the UK so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, lots of noise at the daily level, but beyond that the signals emerge.e.g.ftse 100http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s= [yahoo.com]^FTSE&amp;t=my&amp;l=on&amp;z=m&amp;q=l&amp;c=dow joneshttp://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s= [yahoo.com]^DJI&amp;t=my&amp;l=on&amp;z=m&amp;q=l&amp;c=The markets are powered primarily by inflation (forget CPI figures, they're heavily manipulated to look good, look at credit creation).
August 15th 1971, the fundamental nature of money changed, debt became money, debt pays interest.
Expansion in credit loaned into existence (by banks) is followed by collapse because of the interest.
You should also take a look at interest rates over the period (couldn't find an online chart).We've been living on bubbles for the last 30 years (there are many smaller credit bubbles in the charts before that), and will continue to do so until the money men lose their influence with the state... It's been 300 years in the UK so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291176</id>
	<title>Economics ...p=r-c</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267181640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most basic economic formula is profit equals revenue minus cost (P = R - C). Like you, many people ignore the cost, C, when analyzing the market.</p><p>China &amp; USA have different costs, because they are separated by the Pacific Ocean. It costs something to ship a movie, e.g. DVD, from one place to the other. If these DVDs are made in China, then the Chinese locale has much lower costs. You can't just teleport those DVDs to North America for free and sell them.</p><p>Drugs, i.e. medicines, are highly regulated for efficacy &amp; safety. The US FDA tests drugs and passes that cost onto the manufacturer, who passes it onto the patient (consumer). Once the Chinese &amp; Indian consumers get the off-patent versions, years of data show the drugs to be safe, which lowers insurance costs to the manufacturer.</p><p>Viagra is a recreational drug, not a medically necessary one. If more people restricted their drug use to medical necessity, then drug price would go down. Demand for drugs &amp; their prices are too high.</p><p>The crack-addict consumer is the cause of your INefficient market, not the suppliers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most basic economic formula is profit equals revenue minus cost ( P = R - C ) .
Like you , many people ignore the cost , C , when analyzing the market.China &amp; USA have different costs , because they are separated by the Pacific Ocean .
It costs something to ship a movie , e.g .
DVD , from one place to the other .
If these DVDs are made in China , then the Chinese locale has much lower costs .
You ca n't just teleport those DVDs to North America for free and sell them.Drugs , i.e .
medicines , are highly regulated for efficacy &amp; safety .
The US FDA tests drugs and passes that cost onto the manufacturer , who passes it onto the patient ( consumer ) .
Once the Chinese &amp; Indian consumers get the off-patent versions , years of data show the drugs to be safe , which lowers insurance costs to the manufacturer.Viagra is a recreational drug , not a medically necessary one .
If more people restricted their drug use to medical necessity , then drug price would go down .
Demand for drugs &amp; their prices are too high.The crack-addict consumer is the cause of your INefficient market , not the suppliers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most basic economic formula is profit equals revenue minus cost (P = R - C).
Like you, many people ignore the cost, C, when analyzing the market.China &amp; USA have different costs, because they are separated by the Pacific Ocean.
It costs something to ship a movie, e.g.
DVD, from one place to the other.
If these DVDs are made in China, then the Chinese locale has much lower costs.
You can't just teleport those DVDs to North America for free and sell them.Drugs, i.e.
medicines, are highly regulated for efficacy &amp; safety.
The US FDA tests drugs and passes that cost onto the manufacturer, who passes it onto the patient (consumer).
Once the Chinese &amp; Indian consumers get the off-patent versions, years of data show the drugs to be safe, which lowers insurance costs to the manufacturer.Viagra is a recreational drug, not a medically necessary one.
If more people restricted their drug use to medical necessity, then drug price would go down.
Demand for drugs &amp; their prices are too high.The crack-addict consumer is the cause of your INefficient market, not the suppliers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289822</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1267174980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chaos Theory. Patterns in otherwise seemingly random outcomes. If you look at the details, for instance each snowflake, you'd come to the conclusion that each snowflake is unique (they are), however if you take a step back, you'll notice that the randomness of snowflakes becomes clear in that each snowflake conforms to a pattern that is apparent even as each snowflake is unique.</p><p>I know that this is a fairly poor explanation of chaos theory, so don't butcher me too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chaos Theory .
Patterns in otherwise seemingly random outcomes .
If you look at the details , for instance each snowflake , you 'd come to the conclusion that each snowflake is unique ( they are ) , however if you take a step back , you 'll notice that the randomness of snowflakes becomes clear in that each snowflake conforms to a pattern that is apparent even as each snowflake is unique.I know that this is a fairly poor explanation of chaos theory , so do n't butcher me too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chaos Theory.
Patterns in otherwise seemingly random outcomes.
If you look at the details, for instance each snowflake, you'd come to the conclusion that each snowflake is unique (they are), however if you take a step back, you'll notice that the randomness of snowflakes becomes clear in that each snowflake conforms to a pattern that is apparent even as each snowflake is unique.I know that this is a fairly poor explanation of chaos theory, so don't butcher me too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31295974</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>philosopher3000</author>
	<datestamp>1267272900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It means it follows a recognisable pattern, that can be distinguished from random data after the fact but not predicted in advance.</p></div><p>i.e. Music</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means it follows a recognisable pattern , that can be distinguished from random data after the fact but not predicted in advance.i.e .
Music</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means it follows a recognisable pattern, that can be distinguished from random data after the fact but not predicted in advance.i.e.
Music
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289700</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally random = high entropy.<br>Totally predictable = low entropy.</p><p>Neither (totally) random nor (totally) predictable means it's somewhere in the middle<br>of those two extremes, it has medium entropy, which makes it possible to recognize<br>by its entropy, once you've gathered enough data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally random = high entropy.Totally predictable = low entropy.Neither ( totally ) random nor ( totally ) predictable means it 's somewhere in the middleof those two extremes , it has medium entropy , which makes it possible to recognizeby its entropy , once you 've gathered enough data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally random = high entropy.Totally predictable = low entropy.Neither (totally) random nor (totally) predictable means it's somewhere in the middleof those two extremes, it has medium entropy, which makes it possible to recognizeby its entropy, once you've gathered enough data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290068</id>
	<title>Re:not (ever) predictable = random</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267176300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about not random, but the amount of variables involved is high and not all known or acknowledged by all the players?<br>The algorithm could be simpler than the process, but for running it you need information that some of the players won't disclose.<br><br>Anyway, some of the key elements could be related to complex enough system (i.e. weather, how Katrina changed markets? how predictable it was with i.e. 2 weeks in advance? o human behaviour unrelated to market, like 911)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about not random , but the amount of variables involved is high and not all known or acknowledged by all the players ? The algorithm could be simpler than the process , but for running it you need information that some of the players wo n't disclose.Anyway , some of the key elements could be related to complex enough system ( i.e .
weather , how Katrina changed markets ?
how predictable it was with i.e .
2 weeks in advance ?
o human behaviour unrelated to market , like 911 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about not random, but the amount of variables involved is high and not all known or acknowledged by all the players?The algorithm could be simpler than the process, but for running it you need information that some of the players won't disclose.Anyway, some of the key elements could be related to complex enough system (i.e.
weather, how Katrina changed markets?
how predictable it was with i.e.
2 weeks in advance?
o human behaviour unrelated to market, like 911)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290340</id>
	<title>ZOMG!</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1267177560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904153,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">Markets aren't rational?</a> [time.com]<br><a href="http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0502/features/economics.shtml" title="uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow">People (especially people that think of themselves as being "smart") are prone to self-delusion?</a> [uchicago.edu]</p><p>But seriously, why would anyone hold on to the myth that markets are rational given the <strong>experimental</strong> findings of behavioral economics.</p><p>Oh that's right, it's the new religion to to keep the plebes down.  Now excuse me, I have to cash my 30 million dollar bonus check for going bankrupt, because it's so hard to find such well qualified experts brain trust like me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Markets are n't rational ?
[ time.com ] People ( especially people that think of themselves as being " smart " ) are prone to self-delusion ?
[ uchicago.edu ] But seriously , why would anyone hold on to the myth that markets are rational given the experimental findings of behavioral economics.Oh that 's right , it 's the new religion to to keep the plebes down .
Now excuse me , I have to cash my 30 million dollar bonus check for going bankrupt , because it 's so hard to find such well qualified experts brain trust like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Markets aren't rational?
[time.com]People (especially people that think of themselves as being "smart") are prone to self-delusion?
[uchicago.edu]But seriously, why would anyone hold on to the myth that markets are rational given the experimental findings of behavioral economics.Oh that's right, it's the new religion to to keep the plebes down.
Now excuse me, I have to cash my 30 million dollar bonus check for going bankrupt, because it's so hard to find such well qualified experts brain trust like me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290570</id>
	<title>Benford's Law</title>
	<author>Efreet</author>
	<datestamp>1267178580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet one of the main things they use in this is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">Benford's Law</a> [wikipedia.org], which says that numbers beginning with small first digits are more likely to appear in logarithmically distributed data (like most financial data) than numbers with large first digits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet one of the main things they use in this is Benford 's Law [ wikipedia.org ] , which says that numbers beginning with small first digits are more likely to appear in logarithmically distributed data ( like most financial data ) than numbers with large first digits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet one of the main things they use in this is Benford's Law [wikipedia.org], which says that numbers beginning with small first digits are more likely to appear in logarithmically distributed data (like most financial data) than numbers with large first digits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</id>
	<title>Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1267216620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does that mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does that mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does that mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291448</id>
	<title>Re:Key is Jumps</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1267183260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would that be because time series analysis is a quite separate discipline to simple inference?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be because time series analysis is a quite separate discipline to simple inference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be because time series analysis is a quite separate discipline to simple inference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290414</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>cynical kane</author>
	<datestamp>1267177860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not market efficiency. In your example, the moviemakers would respond by making movies 19.99 globally, with the market failure of the Chinese not being able to afford movies.</p><p>Price discrimination* is a key part of economic efficiency when a monopolistic competitor** has control over their market goods. If the competitor sets prices without discrimination, this causes inefficiency because buyers (the Chinese) and sellers (the moviemaker) never get to trade, and market efficiency is defined as maximizing trade within the market.</p><p>* The market kind, not the racist kind.<br>** A monopolistic competitor refers to a competitor that has control over a narrow niche in a wide market, and is not the same as a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not market efficiency .
In your example , the moviemakers would respond by making movies 19.99 globally , with the market failure of the Chinese not being able to afford movies.Price discrimination * is a key part of economic efficiency when a monopolistic competitor * * has control over their market goods .
If the competitor sets prices without discrimination , this causes inefficiency because buyers ( the Chinese ) and sellers ( the moviemaker ) never get to trade , and market efficiency is defined as maximizing trade within the market .
* The market kind , not the racist kind .
* * A monopolistic competitor refers to a competitor that has control over a narrow niche in a wide market , and is not the same as a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not market efficiency.
In your example, the moviemakers would respond by making movies 19.99 globally, with the market failure of the Chinese not being able to afford movies.Price discrimination* is a key part of economic efficiency when a monopolistic competitor** has control over their market goods.
If the competitor sets prices without discrimination, this causes inefficiency because buyers (the Chinese) and sellers (the moviemaker) never get to trade, and market efficiency is defined as maximizing trade within the market.
* The market kind, not the racist kind.
** A monopolistic competitor refers to a competitor that has control over a narrow niche in a wide market, and is not the same as a monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289660</id>
	<title>little in common with the Turing test</title>
	<author>snarkh</author>
	<datestamp>1267217460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The test is to distinguish computer-generated graphs from the actual stock prices.<br>It seems to have very little to do with the actual Turing test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The test is to distinguish computer-generated graphs from the actual stock prices.It seems to have very little to do with the actual Turing test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The test is to distinguish computer-generated graphs from the actual stock prices.It seems to have very little to do with the actual Turing test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31297286</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>DavidShor</author>
	<datestamp>1267292580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're mangling things a bit. Here is a cleaned up version of what you were trying to say:
<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>
Initially, it was believed that asset prices followed a log-normal random walk. That is to say, if Y(t) is equal to price on day t, that Log(Y(t))=Log(Y(t-1))+e(t), where e(t) is a normally distributed error term.
</p><p>
Very quickly, people realized that this wasn't true, and that rare events happened more much often then the previous model predicted. Instead, many academics and investors found that using a model where the error term followed a distribution with heavier tails was more accurate. Usually, something like an Alpha-Stable distribution. (I'm ignoring stuff like stochastic volatility and drift...)
</p><p>
Unfortunately, the math on the initial model is much easier to deal with, because normal distributions have a lot of great properties, and so many people on wall-street used the initial model instead of the more complicated but accurate one. This caused problems.
</p><p>
But model is no more or less "random" then the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're mangling things a bit .
Here is a cleaned up version of what you were trying to say : .
Initially , it was believed that asset prices followed a log-normal random walk .
That is to say , if Y ( t ) is equal to price on day t , that Log ( Y ( t ) ) = Log ( Y ( t-1 ) ) + e ( t ) , where e ( t ) is a normally distributed error term .
Very quickly , people realized that this was n't true , and that rare events happened more much often then the previous model predicted .
Instead , many academics and investors found that using a model where the error term followed a distribution with heavier tails was more accurate .
Usually , something like an Alpha-Stable distribution .
( I 'm ignoring stuff like stochastic volatility and drift... ) Unfortunately , the math on the initial model is much easier to deal with , because normal distributions have a lot of great properties , and so many people on wall-street used the initial model instead of the more complicated but accurate one .
This caused problems .
But model is no more or less " random " then the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're mangling things a bit.
Here is a cleaned up version of what you were trying to say:
 .
Initially, it was believed that asset prices followed a log-normal random walk.
That is to say, if Y(t) is equal to price on day t, that Log(Y(t))=Log(Y(t-1))+e(t), where e(t) is a normally distributed error term.
Very quickly, people realized that this wasn't true, and that rare events happened more much often then the previous model predicted.
Instead, many academics and investors found that using a model where the error term followed a distribution with heavier tails was more accurate.
Usually, something like an Alpha-Stable distribution.
(I'm ignoring stuff like stochastic volatility and drift...)

Unfortunately, the math on the initial model is much easier to deal with, because normal distributions have a lot of great properties, and so many people on wall-street used the initial model instead of the more complicated but accurate one.
This caused problems.
But model is no more or less "random" then the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293954</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267198560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices. However by making money, you are causing somebody else to lose money. All-in-all the global system doesn't make or lose any money unless somebody adds more product thereby reducing the worth of the same product already in the hands of somebody else.</p></div><p>This is not very far from reality. Markets go up because companies create value (or are expected to create value), which is then redistributed in the market (through debt or equity). But if you're talking about professional traders, moving money around is not the way they make money. Basically, the sell financial products (~=investments) at a margin, and this is where they make money. Why a margin? Because they're supporting the risks of market moves, which can make them either earn or lose money. But (most) professional traders try to be as much 'market neutral' as they can, and neither win nor lose money from market moves. In fact, this is the biggest part of their job : hedging the risks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>selling stuff you don't have should be impossible because the market should keep track of what each person has</p></div><p>You're referring to short selling. Usually, you borrow the shares you want to sell from someone else, and then you sell them. Later on, you rebuy them on the market and<br>reimburse the guy you borrowed them from (with interest).  So you're not "lying" to anyone, and clearing houses keep track of what each person has every day.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>some people get rich off it</p></div><p>Some people also lose their shirt. So there is no contradiction here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices .
However by making money , you are causing somebody else to lose money .
All-in-all the global system does n't make or lose any money unless somebody adds more product thereby reducing the worth of the same product already in the hands of somebody else.This is not very far from reality .
Markets go up because companies create value ( or are expected to create value ) , which is then redistributed in the market ( through debt or equity ) .
But if you 're talking about professional traders , moving money around is not the way they make money .
Basically , the sell financial products ( ~ = investments ) at a margin , and this is where they make money .
Why a margin ?
Because they 're supporting the risks of market moves , which can make them either earn or lose money .
But ( most ) professional traders try to be as much 'market neutral ' as they can , and neither win nor lose money from market moves .
In fact , this is the biggest part of their job : hedging the risks.selling stuff you do n't have should be impossible because the market should keep track of what each person hasYou 're referring to short selling .
Usually , you borrow the shares you want to sell from someone else , and then you sell them .
Later on , you rebuy them on the market andreimburse the guy you borrowed them from ( with interest ) .
So you 're not " lying " to anyone , and clearing houses keep track of what each person has every day.some people get rich off itSome people also lose their shirt .
So there is no contradiction here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, all you do is transfer money around and hope you get more by making the right choices.
However by making money, you are causing somebody else to lose money.
All-in-all the global system doesn't make or lose any money unless somebody adds more product thereby reducing the worth of the same product already in the hands of somebody else.This is not very far from reality.
Markets go up because companies create value (or are expected to create value), which is then redistributed in the market (through debt or equity).
But if you're talking about professional traders, moving money around is not the way they make money.
Basically, the sell financial products (~=investments) at a margin, and this is where they make money.
Why a margin?
Because they're supporting the risks of market moves, which can make them either earn or lose money.
But (most) professional traders try to be as much 'market neutral' as they can, and neither win nor lose money from market moves.
In fact, this is the biggest part of their job : hedging the risks.selling stuff you don't have should be impossible because the market should keep track of what each person hasYou're referring to short selling.
Usually, you borrow the shares you want to sell from someone else, and then you sell them.
Later on, you rebuy them on the market andreimburse the guy you borrowed them from (with interest).
So you're not "lying" to anyone, and clearing houses keep track of what each person has every day.some people get rich off itSome people also lose their shirt.
So there is no contradiction here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289968</id>
	<title>I already built this...</title>
	<author>jdigital</author>
	<datestamp>1267175880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three years ago - see <a href="http://www.felixsalmon.com/000763.html" title="felixsalmon.com">http://www.felixsalmon.com/000763.html</a> [felixsalmon.com]</p><p>Oh welp. History repeats itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three years ago - see http : //www.felixsalmon.com/000763.html [ felixsalmon.com ] Oh welp .
History repeats itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three years ago - see http://www.felixsalmon.com/000763.html [felixsalmon.com]Oh welp.
History repeats itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291668</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267184640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? I know that a company can maximize profit by price discriminating, and selling at price specific to the individual, but is it really the case that the company would sell at $19.99 globally? I doubt that the US profit maximizing pricepoint and the world profit maximizing pricepoint are the same. If they could not discriminate by location or individual, the company would be best to sell at the world profit maximizing price, not the US profit maximizing price, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I know that a company can maximize profit by price discriminating , and selling at price specific to the individual , but is it really the case that the company would sell at $ 19.99 globally ?
I doubt that the US profit maximizing pricepoint and the world profit maximizing pricepoint are the same .
If they could not discriminate by location or individual , the company would be best to sell at the world profit maximizing price , not the US profit maximizing price , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I know that a company can maximize profit by price discriminating, and selling at price specific to the individual, but is it really the case that the company would sell at $19.99 globally?
I doubt that the US profit maximizing pricepoint and the world profit maximizing pricepoint are the same.
If they could not discriminate by location or individual, the company would be best to sell at the world profit maximizing price, not the US profit maximizing price, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291456</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>ElAurian</author>
	<datestamp>1267183320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing wrong with price discrimination. All companies should be allowed to sell their products for whatever price they want, based on any criteria they want (except, arguably, race/sex/religion etc, because society doesn't like it).</p><p>However, using the legal system to enforce that price discrimination is a bad idea. Without the extensive legal barriers set up to "make prices fair", and with uniform labor/production/safety etc laws worldwide, the average incomes of people in the West and people in China (in this example) would equalise much more rapidly.</p><p>When corporations hijack governments to protect their own interests, it is bad for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing wrong with price discrimination .
All companies should be allowed to sell their products for whatever price they want , based on any criteria they want ( except , arguably , race/sex/religion etc , because society does n't like it ) .However , using the legal system to enforce that price discrimination is a bad idea .
Without the extensive legal barriers set up to " make prices fair " , and with uniform labor/production/safety etc laws worldwide , the average incomes of people in the West and people in China ( in this example ) would equalise much more rapidly.When corporations hijack governments to protect their own interests , it is bad for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing wrong with price discrimination.
All companies should be allowed to sell their products for whatever price they want, based on any criteria they want (except, arguably, race/sex/religion etc, because society doesn't like it).However, using the legal system to enforce that price discrimination is a bad idea.
Without the extensive legal barriers set up to "make prices fair", and with uniform labor/production/safety etc laws worldwide, the average incomes of people in the West and people in China (in this example) would equalise much more rapidly.When corporations hijack governments to protect their own interests, it is bad for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292252</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>jmalicki</author>
	<datestamp>1267187580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, part of what determines the value is a component of random noise.

In other words, the series is random.  Not uniform, not brownian motion, etc., but a random process nonetheless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , part of what determines the value is a component of random noise .
In other words , the series is random .
Not uniform , not brownian motion , etc. , but a random process nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, part of what determines the value is a component of random noise.
In other words, the series is random.
Not uniform, not brownian motion, etc., but a random process nonetheless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289940</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1267175760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>22222222222222222233333333333333333333333333333337777777777777777777777777</p><p>These numbers are not random, but they are not predictable (at least not by you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>22222222222222222233333333333333333333333333333337777777777777777777777777These numbers are not random , but they are not predictable ( at least not by you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>22222222222222222233333333333333333333333333333337777777777777777777777777These numbers are not random, but they are not predictable (at least not by you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289622</id>
	<title>Re:Not random and not predictable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A system can be random but so complex that the only working model of it is the system itself. Such a system is not random but effectively not predictable either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A system can be random but so complex that the only working model of it is the system itself .
Such a system is not random but effectively not predictable either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A system can be random but so complex that the only working model of it is the system itself.
Such a system is not random but effectively not predictable either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290888</id>
	<title>Completely random?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267180080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces. They say that the more efficient it is, the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random. </p></div><p>I'd really like to see a citation for this. I've studied a fair deal of economics in my day, and I don't remember anything even like a claim that a perfect market is completely random. Maybe I just studied the wrong (or maybe right, in this case) economics, but I can't think of any theoretical foundation for that.</p><p>If anyone can point me in the direction of real research on this, I'm very interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces .
They say that the more efficient it is , the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random .
I 'd really like to see a citation for this .
I 've studied a fair deal of economics in my day , and I do n't remember anything even like a claim that a perfect market is completely random .
Maybe I just studied the wrong ( or maybe right , in this case ) economics , but I ca n't think of any theoretical foundation for that.If anyone can point me in the direction of real research on this , I 'm very interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces.
They say that the more efficient it is, the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random.
I'd really like to see a citation for this.
I've studied a fair deal of economics in my day, and I don't remember anything even like a claim that a perfect market is completely random.
Maybe I just studied the wrong (or maybe right, in this case) economics, but I can't think of any theoretical foundation for that.If anyone can point me in the direction of real research on this, I'm very interested.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290864</id>
	<title>Re:People don't matter. People are just a host.</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1267179960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously.</p><p>Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence. The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator. Admittedly the ecology is complex, (dollars, derivatives, bonds, et al.) but the fundamental rules are the same.</p><p>Money want to reproduce. We (our collective cultural awareness) are merely hosts for money to exist.</p><p>Usually, money is symbiotic, benefiting the host and itself. Occasionally, it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts (i.e. tulip manias, compulsive gambling/banking, stock market crashes).</p><p>The delusion here is thinking that we can "control" the economy. The economy (our name for money's ecology), will always, to some degree, be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents. We can garden (i.e. set up nice environments for money to replicate), but direct control is probably a pipe dream). Moreover, money replication isn't free. It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited. Expanding the garden forever isn't an option. Sustaining a nice one probably is.</p></div><p>It is possible for the economy to grow, even with hard-limited resources, for as long as technology continues to grow. New tech allows greater effeciencies to develop (think of computing power per kg of silicon, for example) which allows greater economic value to be derived from a given amount of resources. More value or use from a given input of natural resources or labour tends to decrease the 'real' price of those resources, because in a way they become less 'scarce'. A 'bigger economy' can mean 'cheaper stuff' as well as or instead of 'more stuff'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence .
The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator .
Admittedly the ecology is complex , ( dollars , derivatives , bonds , et al .
) but the fundamental rules are the same.Money want to reproduce .
We ( our collective cultural awareness ) are merely hosts for money to exist.Usually , money is symbiotic , benefiting the host and itself .
Occasionally , it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts ( i.e .
tulip manias , compulsive gambling/banking , stock market crashes ) .The delusion here is thinking that we can " control " the economy .
The economy ( our name for money 's ecology ) , will always , to some degree , be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents .
We can garden ( i.e .
set up nice environments for money to replicate ) , but direct control is probably a pipe dream ) .
Moreover , money replication is n't free .
It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited .
Expanding the garden forever is n't an option .
Sustaining a nice one probably is.It is possible for the economy to grow , even with hard-limited resources , for as long as technology continues to grow .
New tech allows greater effeciencies to develop ( think of computing power per kg of silicon , for example ) which allows greater economic value to be derived from a given amount of resources .
More value or use from a given input of natural resources or labour tends to decrease the 'real ' price of those resources , because in a way they become less 'scarce' .
A 'bigger economy ' can mean 'cheaper stuff ' as well as or instead of 'more stuff' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence.
The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator.
Admittedly the ecology is complex, (dollars, derivatives, bonds, et al.
) but the fundamental rules are the same.Money want to reproduce.
We (our collective cultural awareness) are merely hosts for money to exist.Usually, money is symbiotic, benefiting the host and itself.
Occasionally, it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts (i.e.
tulip manias, compulsive gambling/banking, stock market crashes).The delusion here is thinking that we can "control" the economy.
The economy (our name for money's ecology), will always, to some degree, be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents.
We can garden (i.e.
set up nice environments for money to replicate), but direct control is probably a pipe dream).
Moreover, money replication isn't free.
It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited.
Expanding the garden forever isn't an option.
Sustaining a nice one probably is.It is possible for the economy to grow, even with hard-limited resources, for as long as technology continues to grow.
New tech allows greater effeciencies to develop (think of computing power per kg of silicon, for example) which allows greater economic value to be derived from a given amount of resources.
More value or use from a given input of natural resources or labour tends to decrease the 'real' price of those resources, because in a way they become less 'scarce'.
A 'bigger economy' can mean 'cheaper stuff' as well as or instead of 'more stuff'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289864</id>
	<title>Re:Economists ...</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1267175220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue is that the price mechanism can't deal with the complexity of the real world, it's too easy to externalzie and hide other important real world data and costs that price mechanisms of market theoreticians can never take into account.</p><p>Efficient markets could work if everybody was god, but people are not 1) equally skilled 2) have equal time to analze information 3) do not have unbiased access to opportunities 4) Human psychology tends to treat those with much money as special or royalty, when most rich people have simply taken advantage of large numbers - they are not necessarily rich because they are better then competing products or better then everyone else for instance, rather lots of complex factors go into "financial success" often times it involves criminal behaviour (i.e. bail out of the banks, the stock market ponzi game, etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue is that the price mechanism ca n't deal with the complexity of the real world , it 's too easy to externalzie and hide other important real world data and costs that price mechanisms of market theoreticians can never take into account.Efficient markets could work if everybody was god , but people are not 1 ) equally skilled 2 ) have equal time to analze information 3 ) do not have unbiased access to opportunities 4 ) Human psychology tends to treat those with much money as special or royalty , when most rich people have simply taken advantage of large numbers - they are not necessarily rich because they are better then competing products or better then everyone else for instance , rather lots of complex factors go into " financial success " often times it involves criminal behaviour ( i.e .
bail out of the banks , the stock market ponzi game , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue is that the price mechanism can't deal with the complexity of the real world, it's too easy to externalzie and hide other important real world data and costs that price mechanisms of market theoreticians can never take into account.Efficient markets could work if everybody was god, but people are not 1) equally skilled 2) have equal time to analze information 3) do not have unbiased access to opportunities 4) Human psychology tends to treat those with much money as special or royalty, when most rich people have simply taken advantage of large numbers - they are not necessarily rich because they are better then competing products or better then everyone else for instance, rather lots of complex factors go into "financial success" often times it involves criminal behaviour (i.e.
bail out of the banks, the stock market ponzi game, etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290182</id>
	<title>Poker</title>
	<author>The Abused Developer</author>
	<datestamp>1267176840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is what it means; it means that all the crap on the Wall Street is nothing else but genuine *Poker*; and, as the Poker, the *Bank* drives the game and cheats as it wishes;
you, the f&amp;\%^#$er on the main street just have to play for giving them the money. did someone expected something else?! not me,</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is what it means ; it means that all the crap on the Wall Street is nothing else but genuine * Poker * ; and , as the Poker , the * Bank * drives the game and cheats as it wishes ; you , the f&amp; \ % ^ # $ er on the main street just have to play for giving them the money .
did someone expected something else ? !
not me,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is what it means; it means that all the crap on the Wall Street is nothing else but genuine *Poker*; and, as the Poker, the *Bank* drives the game and cheats as it wishes;
you, the f&amp;\%^#$er on the main street just have to play for giving them the money.
did someone expected something else?!
not me,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289546</id>
	<title>Here Is The Simple Form:</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1267216860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>* Do you have any money?<br>
 - If 'No', please leave.<br>
 - If 'Yes', please give me your money.<br>
* Did you give me all your money?<br>
 - If 'No', you pass. Please leave.<br>
 - If 'Yes', you are a fool. Please Leave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Do you have any money ?
- If 'No ' , please leave .
- If 'Yes ' , please give me your money .
* Did you give me all your money ?
- If 'No ' , you pass .
Please leave .
- If 'Yes ' , you are a fool .
Please Leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Do you have any money?
- If 'No', please leave.
- If 'Yes', please give me your money.
* Did you give me all your money?
- If 'No', you pass.
Please leave.
- If 'Yes', you are a fool.
Please Leave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31297286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31296098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31295974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1751201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291176
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31295974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291900
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293100
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31293954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31297286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31296098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31292252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31291448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31290156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1751201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1751201.31289750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
