<p>BCEagle91’s last post makes sense to me. </p>
<p>EMM1, thanks a lot. :)</p>
<p>“Fast, cheap genetic sequencing machines have the potential to revolutionize science and medicine–but only if geneticists can figure out how to deal with the floods of data their machines are producing. That’s where computer scientists can save the day. In this article from IEEE Spectrum, two computational biologists explain how they’re borrowing big data solutions from companies like Google and Amazon to meet the challenge. An explanation of the scope of the problem, from the article: ‘The roughly 2000 sequencing instruments in labs and hospitals around the world can collectively generate about 15 petabytes of compressed genetic data each year. To put this into perspective, if you were to write this data onto standard DVDs, the resulting stack would be more than 2 miles tall. And with sequencing capacity increasing at a rate of around three- to fivefold per year, next year the stack would be around 6 to 10 miles tall. At this rate, within the next five years the stack of DVDs could reach higher than the orbit of the International Space Station.’” – Slashdot</p>
<p>Big Data, Computer Science, Curing Cancer - all good stuff.</p>
<p>That is very, very cool.</p>
<p>I was talking to my son yesterday about this stuff. He’s been doing IS stuff mostly and is moving onto the genomics side in a week. I asked him a bunch of questions about this hardware, what the data problems are and what he’ll be doing and he didn’t know for the most part. One thing that he did tell me is that there aren’t very many people trained in the use of the sequencing machines and they cost a small fortune and you need a small fortune for your computing budget. I have the feeling that the pipelines used are inefficient. I’ve looked at the code for current gen sequencing and I found some good optimizations with just inspection. I want to try some performance analysis but I couldn’t get a hold of the genome data - there are database available but you have to be a known researcher to get the stuff because the genome identifies a person and they could potentially lose their privacy.</p>
<p>Looks like your son is getting into the ground floor of something that is going to take off.</p>
<p>One thing about a market going nowhere is the theory of buy low, sell high…</p>
<p>Usually when traders do that…there net long position is a little smaller than they like. Let’s say the trader wants to be long 10,000 shares of a stock but thinks the stock is temporarily stuck in a trading range.</p>
<p>So…the trader may be long less than 10,000 because he wants to buy lower. Maybe long 5,000 with the idea he will buy more as the stock drops. </p>
<p>The problems…the stock starts going up to the top of the trading range. One…the trader isn’t long enough so he doesn’t have room to sell much.</p>
<p>Two…the trader starts thinking…maybe this time the stock is going to break out. So the trader, instead of selling a little…he buys towards the top of the trading range. After all, the trader does like the stock.</p>
<p>So the trader thinks the market is confirming his views as the stock rallies and he buys
more at higher prices. Then…the stock goes back down because it is in a trading range. </p>
<p>The trader has no bullets left to buy at the bottom of the trading range. The trader starts thinking about selling some because he is disciplined and wants to control his losses in case the stock breaks down.</p>
<p>The above is written from personal experience. :)</p>
<p>That’s why transitions are a pain.</p>
<p>I bought some 9/21 iwm 78 - 102 call spreads and 98 - 93 put spreads.</p>
<p>“While expecting to stick mainly with Intel’s longtime-processor technology, Mr. Krzanich said he would not rule out building chips for major foundry customers who prefer the ARM Holdings PLC ( ARMH ) technology that dominates in smartphones and tablets.
“We will consider what it takes to land customers,” Ms. James said.”</p>
<p>[Intel</a> Sees Faster, More Flexible Future](<a href=“http://www.nasdaq.com/article/intel-sees-faster-more-flexible-future-20130628-00532#ixzz2XXJyXaLU]Intel”>http://www.nasdaq.com/article/intel-sees-faster-more-flexible-future-20130628-00532#ixzz2XXJyXaLU)</p>
<p>Anyone here has had any bad experience with the gold bullion online dealers? I’m looking at kitco, apmex and blanchard. Provident seems to have some complaints about delivery time.</p>
<p>Have you tried a local coin shop?</p>
<p>I looked at the coin dealer database at usmint.gov. The nearest ones didn’t have good reviews at yelp.</p>
<p>"I am doing trades with zero probability of profitablity and chances of losses. Not a winning recipe for success.</p>
<p>What I am doing is buying stock… Watching the stock go against me… So then I sell calls at crummy prices and hope the stock is stable next week so I can get out even. The gamblers prayer."</p>
<p>I don’t understand the point of doing this. I know with options there is always the hope of making higher multiples of your investments quicker, but why put ones self in this situation? Why not just buy stock or ETF’s that you think are well priced (with larger amounts of money) and sell them when the prices go up? If the prices go down, just wait the weeks or months that it takes for the price to improve. Why take huge risks that you might lose, if the market doesn’t do exactly what you need it to, when you could take lower risks and just wait longer if you need to?</p>
<p>I guess I’m asking why you guys do this risky day trading with so much loss potential. If you gamble at a casino, at least you can enjoy yourself and get free drinks.</p>
<p>[Why</a> ?average? returns aren?t good enough - Brett Arends’s ROI - MarketWatch](<a href=“Why ‘average’ returns aren’t good enough - MarketWatch”>Why ‘average’ returns aren’t good enough - MarketWatch)</p>
<p>BCE, I once was talking to a physics professor here about the data that comes out of various computer simulations. He made a great comment about how the amount of GB the entire Library of Congress takes up is smaller than some simple 100 atom systems people try to simulate. What is the quality of all that data they’re collecting if they really need that much? How much is actual data, and how much is extraneous stuff they’re collecting because we haven’t figure out a good way to do all this stuff yet.</p>
<p>I’d also like to comment about the software side of the genomics stuff. Pretty much all of the software I’ve used for scientific equipment has been either programmed by scientists (that guy in the group that knows how to write code best) or is done by contracted programmers. These companies see their product as the machine, and the software/analysis as a liability. I recently asked a sales rep why they wanted to charge me $1500 to upgrade their software (for a $100k machine) so it would be compatible with something past Windows 98. He said the company sees software as a cost that should be covered directly by the consumer, and it’s not their problem if the software doesn’t run well. When I purchased the next one of those machines I went with the company that offers their software as freeware with online lesson plans, support, and a community for people that want to develop their own plugins. :)</p>
<p>The current approach is to look for specific data in a genome. This is a given amount of work. The next gen approach is to get the whole thing so that you can do more analysis without multiple sequencing (BTW, this is my interpretation of what my son told me). There’s obviously a lot of extraneous data but you may not know what is interesting because you currently have to be specific about what you want.</p>
<p>Some of the current software is open source and supported. I asked my son how the software works with next gen and he told me that he doesn’t know because he hasn’t worked with it yet.</p>
<p>Well doct, what did you see that was new for you or that spoke to you in that last link.</p>
<p>I am loving the genome talk.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting like, DocT. I never really thought of it that way.</p>
<p>Though I still think that occasionally going to the casino and having a few free drinks while gambling is a lot more fun.</p>
<p>Good to hear there’s somewhat better software support in the market your son’s in. I guess the point I mostly missed is the software I use seems to often be made by amateurs (or at least stuff I could duplicate if I had the time/motivation). It can be really frustrating to drop a small fortune on these sorts of machines which then have an interface and usability that looks like it came off Windows 3.1.</p>
<p>“Well doct, what did you see that was new for you or that spoke to you in that last link.”</p>
<p>Actually this speaks to me more clearly:</p>
<p>[When</a> ?Nothing? Is the Right Thing](<a href=“http://www.marketminder.com/a/fisher-investments-when-nothing-is-the-right-thing/2c1ab2db-a1e8-49b0-833f-20c65419d318.aspx]When”>http://www.marketminder.com/a/fisher-investments-when-nothing-is-the-right-thing/2c1ab2db-a1e8-49b0-833f-20c65419d318.aspx)</p>
<p>Ok… I like the link. </p>
<p>I can see a few reasons why investors have issues with stocks.</p>
<p>Losses psychologically feel different than gains.
Investors dont like the volatility of stocks.</p>
<p>Losses percentage wise are different than gains. You lose 50 percent then you gain 50 percent… You are down.</p>
<p>The timing of losses is very important. If you are on a fixed income and you are spending down your assets, a loss at the wrong time can cause you to run out of money. </p>
<p>The future and the past may not be similar.</p>