I should add that at the last (non-home-) office at which I worked, we had those Avaya phones. And almost never used them. Even when communicating with the remote office we used IM most of the time. Between that, cell phones, and Skype, we often ended up forgetting how to even dial out on the Avaya phones.
If it's a small office, and everybody has computers, I'd be tempted to use something like SoGo for interoperability. But for communications other than email, I'd say screw phones, PBXes, etc. For intra-office comm use a good IM program. If you're on Apples, you have about 3 different ways to do voice or video chat, if typing isn't your style. For outside the office, just put everybody on Skype or one of the open source alternatives. Between Skype and cell phones you probably are covered.
For $50 / year, each person can have a regular telephone number, complete with caller ID and call forwarding, on their Skype account. Skype-Skype calls are always free; calling outside Skype is dirt cheap in most of the world, and unlimited US-Canada calling is only $2.99 / mo.
"So, now we know what to do to prevent or get rid of Dodd-Frank and other pieces of idiotic legislation."
What really gets me is that it was totally unnecessary. There was absolutely no need for that last-minute "explosion"... people had been telling their Congresscritters all along what they thought of SOPA and PIPA, they just didn't listen.
It took a BIG, and rather firm, kick in the ass to get them to pay attention. But that's not the way government is supposed to work. We aren't supposed to have to whip them to get them to actually work for us.
Well, you do mention multiple 1911s. Perhaps that is why. I have no doubt that ATF would have advised him to fill out a form even if he didn't technically have to. And maybe his lawyer just wanted to make real sure his ass was covered. But maybe there were other reasons. I don't know.
Go ahead... run new cable for an entire office building, terminating it properly in jacks with plates at the proper height in the wall, by running it manually through the drop ceiling.
Now, maybe OP's situation with the shop is much different from what mine was, when I had to do a whole new office of about 120 people, most of whom had computers in their rooms.
But run it myself through the drop ceiling? NFW. And if the commercial installers had to re-do it later, yes they would have ripped out walls to do it. The bundle of phone cables near the hub room was nearly 12" around, and the bundle of ethernet cables the same.
You are referring to different laws, not all of which apply to the case at hand.
For example, Title 27 Chapter 1 Section 178.39 refers to assembling weapons from imported parts, not to making your own.
As the ATF's own statement (quoted elsewhere in this thread) says, you CAN manufacture "non-sporting" firearms. You just can't assemble them from imported parts. However, as you point out yourself, a distinction must be made between just a "non-sporting" firearm, and an NFA firearm which requires a permit.
Further, just for the information of readers: most firearms which possess the characteristics listed above under "non-sporting" are still actually "sporting" firearms. As a case in point: it is perfectly legal in some states (perhaps not many) to use an AR15 for deer hunting. And even where they are not legal for deer they are still perfectly legal (as long as you are using a magazine of legal capacity) for hunting smaller game. And of course other sports include target shooting.
"Transferring a forging or casting that is so well dimensioned and therefore in a condition where it can be used without modification in a firearm is illegal. As its a completed receiver regardless if its been machined or not."
The problem with your argument is that a printer file is NOT a receiver.
It is only an engineering drawing converted to machine-readable format. It is nothing more than a description of the object, which is perfectly legal. You can transfer descriptions and engineering drawings and plans all day long. There is NOTHING illegal about it.
Further, it is nothing like having a complete receiver from a work standpoint. Far from it. You are actually manufacturing the entire thing.
Not just an analogy but a concrete example: I could send you a CNC file so that with the right machine, you could simply load the file and mill an entire receiver out of a block of aluminum. It doesn't matter that the machine is doing all the work! The work is still being done. You are manufacturing the entire piece.
Further, I don't even need to send you a CNC file. I can send you a CAD file -- an engineering drawing -- and you can convert it yourself with the proper software to CNC instructions.
There is nothing different about a 3D printer. It is simply a different method of manufacturing.
He actually does make one good point though. Little accidents can get you in trouble. The Olofson story is a case in point: he had assembled his own weapon from parts. The ATF -- with a great deal of purposeful effort by experts -- managed to fiddle with it enough to get it to fire two rounds in a row when the trigger was pulled. Olofson was then charged with possessing a "fully automatic" weapon.
The Weaver story is even worse in a way. What some accounts don't mention is that it was the FBI themselves who had their informant convince Weaver to saw off the shotgun... and legally, he made it maybe as much as 1/8" too short. It was a screwup... very obviously no attempt to make a "concealable" shotgun. The FBI then threatened Weaver with the gun charge in order to get him to inform on a group of white supremacists who used to live in the area. And things just got worse from there.
In the end, Weaver's son had been shot (in the back) and killed by the FBI, his wife shot and killed by an FBI sniper while she was holding her baby. Weaver went to jail.
"Sure. You SAY it's not illegal. How confident are you in that?"
Very. In general, it simply isn't illegal. You can still screw up and do something illegal if you don't know what you're doing, like accidentally making one that is "fully automatic". But otherwise, nobody's going to jail because it simply isn't against the law. See the quote from the ATF's own web page that somebody posted above. The lawyers have been all over that statement and you can Google their analyses of it if you need to prove that for yourself.
However: it is true that accidents can get you into trouble. Olofson was the one I was referring to in the last paragraph. And the Randy Weaver story is -- and always has been -- absolutely horrifying. It is nothing short of appalling that it could happen in the United States. It is law enforcement themselves who should have gone to prison over that.
"You're legal if you fill out BATFE Form 1 - Application to Make and Register a Firearm and pay the tax (which is really the core of the issue.) The home-made firearm must be properly marked, and it's yours forever. You may not sell it, give it away, etc. It must comply with a bunch of other rules too - not an automatic weapon, not a short-barrel shotgun, etc."
Parts of this statement are misleading, and parts untrue.
With a few exceptions, you do NOT need a Federal permit to manufacture a gun for personal use. Somebody quoted the ATF webpage above, where it clearly states that. (And I have seen legal analyses of that same page. The language may be a bit wonky but it still says you don't need a permit.)
True, you may not sell it or give it away.
"It must comply with a bunch of other rules too - not an automatic weapon, not a short-barrel shotgun, etc."
False. It need not necessarily comply. Again, the ATF's own statement says that "non-sporting" firearms (a sawed-off shotgun is a "non-sporting" firearm) can be manufactured for personal use. However, if it is an "NFA" firearm, THEN you must pay the tax and get a permit.
"At that point, when the receiver itself, can legally be considered completed, as there is no other work to be done by the party using the 3D printer file, then it can be considered that the technology transfer took place regardless if you still need a 3D printer to print the receiver. Making the whole operation illegal."
I am pretty sure this is not the case. You can freely sell plans and engineering drawings for pretty much any kind of weapon, including fully automatic weapons. There is absolutely nothing illegal about transferring the "technology".
And a printer file is nothing but an engineering drawing in machine-readable format; in fact they can be automatically generated from CAD files. I doubt an argument that it is anything but a description of a part would hold up in court.
The language they use here can be a little confusing.
In this context, "non-sporting" generally means something that does not meet the minimal standards for "sporting" arms. Those standards include things like barrel length. So for example a "sawed-off" shotgun with a 12-inch barrel would be in the "non-sporting" category. You can make one yourself (in the U.S.), but you can't assemble one from imported parts. State regulations may also vary.
Also, by "NFA" firearm, they mean something that was generally prohibited by the National Firearms Act. Examples might be fully automatic guns (manufactured after the Act was passed), or a 40mm grenade launcher. You can still obtain most NFA firearms, but you must pay a rather steep tax, and apply for approval from the ATF.
Not every building is an office building. I should have added that if you have open work areas as many shops do, of course you will need to run conduit. That's all fine. But even so: as I say, run at least Cat6 cable. Don't even consider anything less.
Many people here seem to assume you will be running the cable yourself. I did not get that impression. But regardless, make sure they use large pipes and LABEL every cable end.
And if someone else is installing, and you think you might have to pull any cable yourself later, have them leave an extra string inside each.
"Whats the likely tech growth (is a need for > 1 Gbps realistic for business needs or could you save 20% with plain Cat 5 cables?)"
You don't need to predict the tech growth. All you need is the length of the lease on the build-out.
You NEED a telecomm room. This is not an option. It needs venting and must have sufficient space for racks. This is where they will put your telephone patch panel, and you will put your PBX if you get one, your routers, servers, etc.
When the phone lines are being put in, have them run ethernet at the same time. Each phone jack (plate) in the wall should have 2 jacks: an RJ-11 for phone and an RJ-45 for ethernet. You want Cat 6 or better cable. Don't scrimp on this. The incremental cost between Cat 5 and Cat 6 is only a penny or two per foot; you might save a little at first but if you need Gb ethernet in a couple of places 2 years from now you will end up spending more than what you saved.
The other end of all of those wires is in your telecomm closet, where the phone patch panels for the phones, and you (if necessary) will have routers/switches. Plan ahead (before the room is built) whether you want wall-mount or rack-mount switches.
By the way: have them LABEL those cable ends. You'd think this would go without saying but if you don't tell them, you might end up having to spend a couple of weeks toning out which cable goes to what room.
If your lease is for more than 5 years, have them run fiber, too. That's going to cost more but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than ripping out walls later.
"You are only talking about price, which is only half of the futures contract. The other half is supply. If I pay a little more for a guaranteed supply in the future, I don't really see how that is gambling."
And you're only talking about a single contract, which is not a market, any more than paying somebody to put out the fire in your house is an insurance industry.
As for supply: the fact that I was only (in most of my posts) talking about the price side is irrelevant. People win and lose on the supply side, too.
In a horse race, once you plunk down your money, it is up to the horse to deliver. When it doesn't, a lot of people lose.
In a futures market, it's not a matter of absolute delivery, but delivery at the marginal cost that was bet upon when the contract was made; if suppliers asked for too little (under conditions at time of delivery, which is often years later), then they lose their bet. If conditions are favorable and the margin in the contract is large enough, the suppliers win. It's not a one-sided deal.
"You are wrong â" and it is a classic rookie mistake"
I'm not wrong, you are just misunderstanding me.
First, you are wrong here:
"Futures pricing is straight forward. No probability, no liner programing, etc."
Straightforward is one word, and the other word is linear, not "liner". But that's just FYI, not why I'm saying you're wrong.
I never claimed futures needed complex calculations. Only negotiation. Not even close to the same things.
But there *IS* probability! Absolutely! If you are betting on corn futures then you are betting on how the weather affects next year's crop. If you get it wrong, you end up paying more than others. A LOT of people lost those bets this year.
Weather (not climate; I'm not getting into the "global warming" shit) is probability. And this year is an excellent example.
There are always variables in futures.
And by the way: you would not make a dime off of me, because
1. You appear to be semi-literate. But I'll give you this one. Maybe you were just having a few beers. I have fumble-fingered my keyboard before, more than once.
2. You might know your sales pitch, but you don't understand the actual economic foundation of the product you're trying to sell. Tell me all about the difference between a market price and a marginal price.
3. All of the items you list don't make it "not gambling"... those are just the "house advantage". You even admit it when you claim you'd take me for a ride.
"Good insurance organizations will document the hell out the risk, even going so far as to spend money to buy down risk. Gambling usually entails a totally unknown risk, or if the risk is known you have no way to recoup or mitigate losses."
And good betters on horses document the hell out of every past race, the race conditions, and EVERY fucking statistical detail about each horse.
Your "fine line" is so fine, it doesn't actually exist.
"Your method sounds like it will reward the 'humble advertisers' again"
NoScript is flexible, in that you can whitelist or blacklist domains. That is handy because it doesn't intrude on your browsing. But domains that are not black- or white-listed are still blocked, unless you give them temporary permission.
I like that arrangement. I used AdBlock for quite a while, but NoScript far more configurable and "general purpose", for my taste.
Ex: If a site wants to use Google Analytics, you can let it, or let NoScript block it by default. I work with web pages so there are times I want to whitelist domains I'm working on, but I don't care to let GA see everything I do. Other common ones: doubleclick (the monster still lives), yahoo, etc. There are about a million of them and if you install NoScript I guarantee you will be apalled at how many sites allow how many third-party scripts to access your session.
But ads in general, and particularly those that are not dependent on 3rd-party script, are not blocked.
"In a way it's ANTI-gambling. Instead of trusting to chance to make money, you reduce the effect of chance. You agree to reduce your potential winnings by X, but taking them 100% certain (you either win or insurance pays out)."
Robert A. Heinlein probably said it best (paraphrase): "Insurance is nothing but gambling. The problem is: if you win, you lose, and if you lose, you win."
Whoah... WTF? Hey, dude, I just noticed this bit and we aren't on the same channel at all.
"If I sign a futures contract today for corn to be delivered 6 months from now.. in 6 months, that farmer will sell the corn to whoever holds that contract. That contract cannot be broken -- no matter the current price on the market.
If I sign a futures contract 2 months from today, the price for that new contract may be different.. but it does not affect the price of my previous contract, even though the farmer has not delivered the goods yet -- that price is fixed."
Who said ANYTHING about breaking the contract? Or modifying other contracts? Or them not being transferrable? WHO? Sure as fuck not me. Go back and read everything I wrote again. Find where I wrote anything about ANY of those things, and point it out to me. I mean specifically, the entire sentence(s). Because I sure as hell don't recall writing anything of the kind. Are you sure you are replying to the right person?
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Nobody brought up anything about breaking contracts. Where did this come from? Are you sure you're only eating the mushrooms that came from the store?
"There is no gambling here.. futures contracts are just people buying goods in advance."
Answer me these questions:
What wins a futures contract?
What is a projected marginal value versus a current market price?
So are futures contracts formed primarily on the basis of the current value, or a projected marginal value?
You don't really need to answer. Futures deals are made (or not made) after negotiating the projected marginal value. Never before. Nobody would be stupid enough to sign a futures contract based on today's value. That's not the way it works. Your milk example is bullshit, because it's not next year's milk. Or milk 5 years from now.
Projected marginal value is a BET. It is nothing but a bet on what is going to happen later. You are talking about commodities markets as though they were futures markets. But they are not the same things.
I will put it a different way:
In many places in the world today, you can "invest" in what horses will do in the future. You never know. Maybe the conditions will be too dry, or something else... it's not totally predictable (except when the outcome is "fixed", which is illegal, and even then it's not totally predictable).
Of course we're talking here about horse racing. Which is gambling. The only genuine difference between the futures market and horse racing is that the base price has been subtracted out, so that ALL of the gain or loss in a horse race is the projected margin. In the futures market, the margin is (sometimes) small compared to the base, so the risks are generally (but not always) lower.
"You know, I would agree with you except that you are wrong."
And I would argue with you more except that you don't have any real arguments to make that you can back up.
Repeat: look up the regulations governing Freddie and Fannie. Read them. (It might take you a while... that is not intended as an insult; it would take anybody a while.) After you have done your studies, get back to me. Then we can discuss it.
Slashdot Mirror
I should add that at the last (non-home-) office at which I worked, we had those Avaya phones. And almost never used them. Even when communicating with the remote office we used IM most of the time. Between that, cell phones, and Skype, we often ended up forgetting how to even dial out on the Avaya phones.
If it's a small office, and everybody has computers, I'd be tempted to use something like SoGo for interoperability. But for communications other than email, I'd say screw phones, PBXes, etc. For intra-office comm use a good IM program. If you're on Apples, you have about 3 different ways to do voice or video chat, if typing isn't your style. For outside the office, just put everybody on Skype or one of the open source alternatives. Between Skype and cell phones you probably are covered.
For $50 / year, each person can have a regular telephone number, complete with caller ID and call forwarding, on their Skype account. Skype-Skype calls are always free; calling outside Skype is dirt cheap in most of the world, and unlimited US-Canada calling is only $2.99 / mo.
No administrative hassles... no server setup.
"So, now we know what to do to prevent or get rid of Dodd-Frank and other pieces of idiotic legislation."
What really gets me is that it was totally unnecessary. There was absolutely no need for that last-minute "explosion"... people had been telling their Congresscritters all along what they thought of SOPA and PIPA, they just didn't listen.
It took a BIG, and rather firm, kick in the ass to get them to pay attention. But that's not the way government is supposed to work. We aren't supposed to have to whip them to get them to actually work for us.
Yes, to be clear, what I was referring to was speculating in the futures market, not purchasing your own futures for your own use.
Well, you do mention multiple 1911s. Perhaps that is why. I have no doubt that ATF would have advised him to fill out a form even if he didn't technically have to. And maybe his lawyer just wanted to make real sure his ass was covered. But maybe there were other reasons. I don't know.
Go ahead... run new cable for an entire office building, terminating it properly in jacks with plates at the proper height in the wall, by running it manually through the drop ceiling.
Now, maybe OP's situation with the shop is much different from what mine was, when I had to do a whole new office of about 120 people, most of whom had computers in their rooms.
But run it myself through the drop ceiling? NFW. And if the commercial installers had to re-do it later, yes they would have ripped out walls to do it. The bundle of phone cables near the hub room was nearly 12" around, and the bundle of ethernet cables the same.
You are referring to different laws, not all of which apply to the case at hand.
For example, Title 27 Chapter 1 Section 178.39 refers to assembling weapons from imported parts, not to making your own.
As the ATF's own statement (quoted elsewhere in this thread) says, you CAN manufacture "non-sporting" firearms. You just can't assemble them from imported parts. However, as you point out yourself, a distinction must be made between just a "non-sporting" firearm, and an NFA firearm which requires a permit.
Further, just for the information of readers: most firearms which possess the characteristics listed above under "non-sporting" are still actually "sporting" firearms. As a case in point: it is perfectly legal in some states (perhaps not many) to use an AR15 for deer hunting. And even where they are not legal for deer they are still perfectly legal (as long as you are using a magazine of legal capacity) for hunting smaller game. And of course other sports include target shooting.
"Transferring a forging or casting that is so well dimensioned and therefore in a condition where it can be used without modification in a firearm is illegal. As its a completed receiver regardless if its been machined or not."
The problem with your argument is that a printer file is NOT a receiver.
It is only an engineering drawing converted to machine-readable format. It is nothing more than a description of the object, which is perfectly legal. You can transfer descriptions and engineering drawings and plans all day long. There is NOTHING illegal about it.
Further, it is nothing like having a complete receiver from a work standpoint. Far from it. You are actually manufacturing the entire thing.
Not just an analogy but a concrete example: I could send you a CNC file so that with the right machine, you could simply load the file and mill an entire receiver out of a block of aluminum. It doesn't matter that the machine is doing all the work! The work is still being done. You are manufacturing the entire piece.
Further, I don't even need to send you a CNC file. I can send you a CAD file -- an engineering drawing -- and you can convert it yourself with the proper software to CNC instructions.
There is nothing different about a 3D printer. It is simply a different method of manufacturing.
"Well, you would have a point there, if..."
He actually does make one good point though. Little accidents can get you in trouble. The Olofson story is a case in point: he had assembled his own weapon from parts. The ATF -- with a great deal of purposeful effort by experts -- managed to fiddle with it enough to get it to fire two rounds in a row when the trigger was pulled. Olofson was then charged with possessing a "fully automatic" weapon.
The Weaver story is even worse in a way. What some accounts don't mention is that it was the FBI themselves who had their informant convince Weaver to saw off the shotgun... and legally, he made it maybe as much as 1/8" too short. It was a screwup... very obviously no attempt to make a "concealable" shotgun. The FBI then threatened Weaver with the gun charge in order to get him to inform on a group of white supremacists who used to live in the area. And things just got worse from there.
In the end, Weaver's son had been shot (in the back) and killed by the FBI, his wife shot and killed by an FBI sniper while she was holding her baby. Weaver went to jail.
"Sure. You SAY it's not illegal. How confident are you in that?"
Very. In general, it simply isn't illegal. You can still screw up and do something illegal if you don't know what you're doing, like accidentally making one that is "fully automatic". But otherwise, nobody's going to jail because it simply isn't against the law. See the quote from the ATF's own web page that somebody posted above. The lawyers have been all over that statement and you can Google their analyses of it if you need to prove that for yourself.
However: it is true that accidents can get you into trouble. Olofson was the one I was referring to in the last paragraph. And the Randy Weaver story is -- and always has been -- absolutely horrifying. It is nothing short of appalling that it could happen in the United States. It is law enforcement themselves who should have gone to prison over that.
"You're legal if you fill out BATFE Form 1 - Application to Make and Register a Firearm and pay the tax (which is really the core of the issue.) The home-made firearm must be properly marked, and it's yours forever. You may not sell it, give it away, etc. It must comply with a bunch of other rules too - not an automatic weapon, not a short-barrel shotgun, etc."
Parts of this statement are misleading, and parts untrue.
With a few exceptions, you do NOT need a Federal permit to manufacture a gun for personal use. Somebody quoted the ATF webpage above, where it clearly states that. (And I have seen legal analyses of that same page. The language may be a bit wonky but it still says you don't need a permit.)
True, you may not sell it or give it away.
"It must comply with a bunch of other rules too - not an automatic weapon, not a short-barrel shotgun, etc."
False. It need not necessarily comply. Again, the ATF's own statement says that "non-sporting" firearms (a sawed-off shotgun is a "non-sporting" firearm) can be manufactured for personal use. However, if it is an "NFA" firearm, THEN you must pay the tax and get a permit.
"At that point, when the receiver itself, can legally be considered completed, as there is no other work to be done by the party using the 3D printer file, then it can be considered that the technology transfer took place regardless if you still need a 3D printer to print the receiver. Making the whole operation illegal."
I am pretty sure this is not the case. You can freely sell plans and engineering drawings for pretty much any kind of weapon, including fully automatic weapons. There is absolutely nothing illegal about transferring the "technology".
And a printer file is nothing but an engineering drawing in machine-readable format; in fact they can be automatically generated from CAD files. I doubt an argument that it is anything but a description of a part would hold up in court.
The language they use here can be a little confusing.
In this context, "non-sporting" generally means something that does not meet the minimal standards for "sporting" arms. Those standards include things like barrel length. So for example a "sawed-off" shotgun with a 12-inch barrel would be in the "non-sporting" category. You can make one yourself (in the U.S.), but you can't assemble one from imported parts. State regulations may also vary.
Also, by "NFA" firearm, they mean something that was generally prohibited by the National Firearms Act. Examples might be fully automatic guns (manufactured after the Act was passed), or a 40mm grenade launcher. You can still obtain most NFA firearms, but you must pay a rather steep tax, and apply for approval from the ATF.
Not every building is an office building. I should have added that if you have open work areas as many shops do, of course you will need to run conduit. That's all fine. But even so: as I say, run at least Cat6 cable. Don't even consider anything less.
Many people here seem to assume you will be running the cable yourself. I did not get that impression. But regardless, make sure they use large pipes and LABEL every cable end.
And if someone else is installing, and you think you might have to pull any cable yourself later, have them leave an extra string inside each.
"Whats the likely tech growth (is a need for > 1 Gbps realistic for business needs or could you save 20% with plain Cat 5 cables?)"
You don't need to predict the tech growth. All you need is the length of the lease on the build-out.
You NEED a telecomm room. This is not an option. It needs venting and must have sufficient space for racks. This is where they will put your telephone patch panel, and you will put your PBX if you get one, your routers, servers, etc.
When the phone lines are being put in, have them run ethernet at the same time. Each phone jack (plate) in the wall should have 2 jacks: an RJ-11 for phone and an RJ-45 for ethernet. You want Cat 6 or better cable. Don't scrimp on this. The incremental cost between Cat 5 and Cat 6 is only a penny or two per foot; you might save a little at first but if you need Gb ethernet in a couple of places 2 years from now you will end up spending more than what you saved.
The other end of all of those wires is in your telecomm closet, where the phone patch panels for the phones, and you (if necessary) will have routers/switches. Plan ahead (before the room is built) whether you want wall-mount or rack-mount switches.
By the way: have them LABEL those cable ends. You'd think this would go without saying but if you don't tell them, you might end up having to spend a couple of weeks toning out which cable goes to what room.
If your lease is for more than 5 years, have them run fiber, too. That's going to cost more but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than ripping out walls later.
"You are only talking about price, which is only half of the futures contract. The other half is supply. If I pay a little more for a guaranteed supply in the future, I don't really see how that is gambling."
And you're only talking about a single contract, which is not a market, any more than paying somebody to put out the fire in your house is an insurance industry.
As for supply: the fact that I was only (in most of my posts) talking about the price side is irrelevant. People win and lose on the supply side, too.
In a horse race, once you plunk down your money, it is up to the horse to deliver. When it doesn't, a lot of people lose.
In a futures market, it's not a matter of absolute delivery, but delivery at the marginal cost that was bet upon when the contract was made; if suppliers asked for too little (under conditions at time of delivery, which is often years later), then they lose their bet. If conditions are favorable and the margin in the contract is large enough, the suppliers win. It's not a one-sided deal.
But it's still a horse race.
"Under your example, all insurance is gambling."
I have explicitly stated this several times already.
"But we generally separate it from casino/sportsbook gambling."
So you put the sows in one pen and the boars in another. That doesn't make either of them "not pigs".
"You are wrong â" and it is a classic rookie mistake"
I'm not wrong, you are just misunderstanding me.
First, you are wrong here:
"Futures pricing is straight forward. No probability, no liner programing, etc."
Straightforward is one word, and the other word is linear, not "liner". But that's just FYI, not why I'm saying you're wrong.
I never claimed futures needed complex calculations. Only negotiation. Not even close to the same things.
But there *IS* probability! Absolutely! If you are betting on corn futures then you are betting on how the weather affects next year's crop. If you get it wrong, you end up paying more than others. A LOT of people lost those bets this year.
Weather (not climate; I'm not getting into the "global warming" shit) is probability. And this year is an excellent example.
There are always variables in futures.
And by the way: you would not make a dime off of me, because
1. You appear to be semi-literate. But I'll give you this one. Maybe you were just having a few beers. I have fumble-fingered my keyboard before, more than once.
2. You might know your sales pitch, but you don't understand the actual economic foundation of the product you're trying to sell. Tell me all about the difference between a market price and a marginal price.
3. All of the items you list don't make it "not gambling"... those are just the "house advantage". You even admit it when you claim you'd take me for a ride.
"Good insurance organizations will document the hell out the risk, even going so far as to spend money to buy down risk. Gambling usually entails a totally unknown risk, or if the risk is known you have no way to recoup or mitigate losses."
And good betters on horses document the hell out of every past race, the race conditions, and EVERY fucking statistical detail about each horse.
Your "fine line" is so fine, it doesn't actually exist.
"Your method sounds like it will reward the 'humble advertisers' again"
NoScript is flexible, in that you can whitelist or blacklist domains. That is handy because it doesn't intrude on your browsing. But domains that are not black- or white-listed are still blocked, unless you give them temporary permission.
I like that arrangement. I used AdBlock for quite a while, but NoScript far more configurable and "general purpose", for my taste.
Ex: If a site wants to use Google Analytics, you can let it, or let NoScript block it by default. I work with web pages so there are times I want to whitelist domains I'm working on, but I don't care to let GA see everything I do. Other common ones: doubleclick (the monster still lives), yahoo, etc. There are about a million of them and if you install NoScript I guarantee you will be apalled at how many sites allow how many third-party scripts to access your session.
But ads in general, and particularly those that are not dependent on 3rd-party script, are not blocked.
"... it is bookkeeping."
So is horse racing. There is a reason they call them "bookies".
Your point is?
"In a way it's ANTI-gambling. Instead of trusting to chance to make money, you reduce the effect of chance. You agree to reduce your potential winnings by X, but taking them 100% certain (you either win or insurance pays out)."
Robert A. Heinlein probably said it best (paraphrase): "Insurance is nothing but gambling. The problem is: if you win, you lose, and if you lose, you win."
"If I sign a futures contract today for corn to be delivered 6 months from now.. in 6 months, that farmer will sell the corn to whoever holds that contract. That contract cannot be broken -- no matter the current price on the market.
If I sign a futures contract 2 months from today, the price for that new contract may be different.. but it does not affect the price of my previous contract, even though the farmer has not delivered the goods yet -- that price is fixed."
Who said ANYTHING about breaking the contract? Or modifying other contracts? Or them not being transferrable? WHO? Sure as fuck not me. Go back and read everything I wrote again. Find where I wrote anything about ANY of those things, and point it out to me. I mean specifically, the entire sentence(s). Because I sure as hell don't recall writing anything of the kind. Are you sure you are replying to the right person?
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Nobody brought up anything about breaking contracts. Where did this come from? Are you sure you're only eating the mushrooms that came from the store?
"There is no gambling here.. futures contracts are just people buying goods in advance."
Answer me these questions:
What wins a futures contract?
What is a projected marginal value versus a current market price?
So are futures contracts formed primarily on the basis of the current value, or a projected marginal value?
You don't really need to answer. Futures deals are made (or not made) after negotiating the projected marginal value. Never before. Nobody would be stupid enough to sign a futures contract based on today's value. That's not the way it works. Your milk example is bullshit, because it's not next year's milk. Or milk 5 years from now.
Projected marginal value is a BET. It is nothing but a bet on what is going to happen later. You are talking about commodities markets as though they were futures markets. But they are not the same things.
I will put it a different way:
In many places in the world today, you can "invest" in what horses will do in the future. You never know. Maybe the conditions will be too dry, or something else... it's not totally predictable (except when the outcome is "fixed", which is illegal, and even then it's not totally predictable).
Of course we're talking here about horse racing. Which is gambling. The only genuine difference between the futures market and horse racing is that the base price has been subtracted out, so that ALL of the gain or loss in a horse race is the projected margin. In the futures market, the margin is (sometimes) small compared to the base, so the risks are generally (but not always) lower.
But lower risk does not equal "not gambling".
"You know, I would agree with you except that you are wrong."
And I would argue with you more except that you don't have any real arguments to make that you can back up.
Repeat: look up the regulations governing Freddie and Fannie. Read them. (It might take you a while... that is not intended as an insult; it would take anybody a while.) After you have done your studies, get back to me. Then we can discuss it.