From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DE9BBC4 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:34:56 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwBAP8nv0lDWxLCe2dsb2JhbACBTpQNAQEWIgSvPIZHiE6DfgY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,378,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="25723555" Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 17 Mar 2009 12:34:56 +0100 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (server2.bertec.net [192.168.2.6]) by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D0310575C for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: From: Kuba Ober To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <53c655920903161937w4d6d5a28t94e95a3910048342@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] caml trading Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:34:53 -0400 References: <891bd3390903131252t7feb059aq94f56b0a4d2efbf3@mail.gmail.com> <87hc1wyl9q.fsf@aryx.cs.uiuc.edu> <891bd3390903141025w3d0580dbgf97ab4f40386903d@mail.gmail.com> <87d4chy29p.fsf@aryx.cs.uiuc.edu> <53c655920903161937w4d6d5a28t94e95a3910048342@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 undergrad:01 cheers:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 argument:02 off-topic:02 rarely:02 complex:05 perhaps:05 anyway:05 i'd:06 long:06 thread:06 osu:07 > I'm not sure how much this is off-topic... Although this thread was > intended to be about an industrial use of OCaml, one cannot ignore > other aspects like advertising: it is rarely possible to separate > issues as clearly as we'd like. Anyway, I feel very much concerned > about this debate, and I'd like to add another non-Jane-St opinion. > > Like many others, I've been feeling for a long time that many > financial products and practices don't make sense. I recognize that we > live in a complex world, and perhaps I should just learn more about > economics. However, the recent crisis showed that this feeling is not > entirely unfounded, even if it does not show that finance is harmful > as a whole. As Feynman once said: if you cannot explain it clearly to an undergrad, you likely don't really understand it yourself. Now the deal is that I wish the pro-trading argument was presented by someone who truly understands (in the Feynman sense). I don't know if there's any single person out there who has as much understanding of trading as Feynman had of physics. There's no "Feynman Lectures on Trading" :( Cheers, Kuba