Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (91523)	5/11/2010 2:48:31 AM
From: N.Novick	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197146

Droid Incredible Tried it out today. Internet seemed like 5X faster than my iPhone (Snapdragon really rocks). Apps still need more work. Great key action. Amazing touch screen, with pinch and reverse pinch zooming very much like iPhone.

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (91523)	5/11/2010 10:13:09 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197146

Not splitting hairs. I was making a distinction b/w trades that may be labeled as "high frequency," but are not in issue with regard to the "mini-crash" the market experienced last Thursday. My comments were in response to Art's post, where he suggested the levy of a surtax on trades made within a 24 hour period. See Message 26519320. Art's comments were really targeted at "short term" trading, not "high frequency" trading. Unfortunately, the media, market participants, regulators, have given the label of "high frequency" trading to what is really "high speed" trading. The former refers to speed of execution, which is what led to the temporary melt town. The latter, in my view. is more focused upon how long one holds a position in a trade, and was the target of Art's suggestion. Bottom line, you can call it anything you want, but at issue is the speed of the trade, not its frequency over time.