Besides that, how "theft-proof" is it really, if the thief just have to be able to take the seat/post out of the frame? A couple of my bikes, back when I still rode bikes, had the quick-set levers on the top of the upright tube, to make it easy to set the height of the seat. This light would make stealing my seat worth $70 more.
As for bikes without the quick-set levers, a set of tools to adjust that same opening isn't that hard to come by, or difficult to use.
Well, there's the online bulletin boards that allow people to comment anonymously. It seems perfectly fine, but then little children find their way to the site, and start using terms like "fucktard", and all decent discourse is shut down. Eventually the site goes away, and another takes its place as the destination for mouth-breathing basement dwellers who can't even muster the courage to create a permanent account that other can use to keep track of them.
Who can think of another example for our dim-witted friend here?
My car doesn't have a taximeter. You have to take the entire definition. You just can't highlight a partial definition and make it the entire definition.
usually fitted with a taximeter,
You were saying?
Also, read my new cookbook, "How to Cook For Humans".
Can you give a general description of the political transformation you have gone through? Basically, what were your politics as a teenager, college age or early jobs, before or after 9/11, and now.
I don't mean anything personally detailed, but the highpoints that have changed.
(And I promise I'm not asking to find something to attack you on. I'm genuinely interested in these things.)
I can't agree with the 1 year minimum rule. Investors need the ability to pull out their money at any time.
If the investors aren't willing to keep their money with a company for a year, then they aren't really investing in that company. They are gamblers, using that company's stock price.
You must have missed the part about not being able to use those shares for other activities. It would include plans like yours, and be enforced the same way the SEC handles other rules violations.
After you own the stock for a year, you can lease it to others. But if they have the ability to sell some of your shares in Company X, you cannot buy more shares of Company X for a year. Lease as many out as you wish.
Because I understand how markets work. Thin markets suck. Large bid-ask gaps suck. Losing 20% of your investment because you made a typo, and you take a 20% hit just between the best price you can buy for and the best price you can sell for sucks.
Oh my fucking god. You're seriously saying that the system I described in a couple lines couldn't possibly have a fail-safe mechanism for people who make a typo and purchase the wrong stock. Open your mind a little more.
I don't care if you hate my plan, and you certainly have more experience in the market itself. But don't bring up issues like "typos" if you expect to be taken seriously.
Let the casino gamblers provide liquidity, and rob each other. It doesn't actually cost us anything - in fact, competition between market makers (which is one thing HFT is used for) saves me a non-trivial amount in my once-per-quarter trading. It's much nicer now than even 10 years ago.
This is actually a good argument. Lead with this in future discussions with others, and forget about frickin typos.
I don't have an investment portfolio. The 401k I had at one time got cashed out a while ago. So, are the HFTs saving me money, or making my expenses go up? If they aren't saving me money, and are contributing to higher prices, I have the right to say put a limit on them. Or, if I don't have the right to limit them, what is the SEC for?
The reply you pulled out of your ass after 10 seconds of contemplation is clearly better than anything I might say. But then, I'm not one to hope the people ruining the system take all the wealth and then crash what's left. Hope they leave you a few crumbs, since you seem perfectly content with that outcome. Certainly we don't want to do something radical to stop the abuses we read about.
If people who hold shares for the long term are the winners, it won't matter then if that is mandated, will it? So you're arguing against the rule because...?
All rules are "made up" you big dope. As far as "arbitrary", the post I responded to also had a time limit, but of a different duration. I notice you are absent in jumping up his asshole about it.
In short, add to the discussion with your own suggestion, or go home.
I've said before there should be a year-long requirement on buying or selling. If you buy shares in GM, you own them for at least a year before you can sell them, or use them as any sort of collateral or trade. If you sell shares in Ford, you are not allowed to buy shares in Ford for one year as well. This goes for all investors, whether individual, corporate, or hedge fund.
This would solve the problem of Wall Street being nothing more than a gambling den, but of course it would never come to pass.
I've been on MetroPCS since 2006, which is now owned by T-Mobile. So I guess I will be under Sprint soon. If it changes my service for the worse, I will have to switch to one of the independents.
I thought all hydrants were dry-barrel. The firemen remove the side caps and connect hoses, then open the valve using the large nut on top of the hydrant. The valve itself is below ground at the water main, connected by a shaft to the nut.
The reason crashing into the hydrant causes the geyser is because the valve is either broken by the impact at the top of its shaft, or the shaft is sheared off and the stopper in the valve is pushed out by water pressure.
That's how it was explained to me anyway. Maybe other systems are different.
No sane reason other than their own words at the time.
Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, why is this the one Constitutionally protected right that you think only applies to groups and not individuals?
Is freedom of the press only for certified reporters working for incorporated news companies? Are only lawyers secure in their papers, because the rest of the citizenry doesn't have good reason to keep papers secret?
Your argument fails so many logic tests it is a surprise it keeps getting posted. But you guys are persistent when you don't like something that someone else is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
I don't always agree with your posts here, but you do make fine points in them.
Besides that, how "theft-proof" is it really, if the thief just have to be able to take the seat/post out of the frame? A couple of my bikes, back when I still rode bikes, had the quick-set levers on the top of the upright tube, to make it easy to set the height of the seat. This light would make stealing my seat worth $70 more.
As for bikes without the quick-set levers, a set of tools to adjust that same opening isn't that hard to come by, or difficult to use.
I hadn't thought about it when reading the submission and web page link. But that is true, isn't it?
Thanks for cracking me up. :^)
Who sells C sells by the late hour?
^see what I did there? ;-)
Yes. You misspelled "cells".
Man, if you could have made those caps into a vulgar term, you would have been gold.
Well, there's the online bulletin boards that allow people to comment anonymously. It seems perfectly fine, but then little children find their way to the site, and start using terms like "fucktard", and all decent discourse is shut down. Eventually the site goes away, and another takes its place as the destination for mouth-breathing basement dwellers who can't even muster the courage to create a permanent account that other can use to keep track of them.
Who can think of another example for our dim-witted friend here?
"with a taximeter"
My car doesn't have a taximeter. You have to take the entire definition. You just can't highlight a partial definition and make it the entire definition.
You were saying?
Also, read my new cookbook, "How to Cook For Humans".
Can you give a general description of the political transformation you have gone through?
Basically, what were your politics as a teenager, college age or early jobs, before or after 9/11, and now.
I don't mean anything personally detailed, but the highpoints that have changed.
(And I promise I'm not asking to find something to attack you on. I'm genuinely interested in these things.)
I can't agree with the 1 year minimum rule. Investors need the ability to pull out their money at any time.
If the investors aren't willing to keep their money with a company for a year, then they aren't really investing in that company. They are gamblers, using that company's stock price.
You must have missed the part about not being able to use those shares for other activities. It would include plans like yours, and be enforced the same way the SEC handles other rules violations.
After you own the stock for a year, you can lease it to others. But if they have the ability to sell some of your shares in Company X, you cannot buy more shares of Company X for a year. Lease as many out as you wish.
Because I understand how markets work. Thin markets suck. Large bid-ask gaps suck. Losing 20% of your investment because you made a typo, and you take a 20% hit just between the best price you can buy for and the best price you can sell for sucks.
Oh my fucking god. You're seriously saying that the system I described in a couple lines couldn't possibly have a fail-safe mechanism for people who make a typo and purchase the wrong stock. Open your mind a little more.
I don't care if you hate my plan, and you certainly have more experience in the market itself. But don't bring up issues like "typos" if you expect to be taken seriously.
Let the casino gamblers provide liquidity, and rob each other. It doesn't actually cost us anything - in fact, competition between market makers (which is one thing HFT is used for) saves me a non-trivial amount in my once-per-quarter trading. It's much nicer now than even 10 years ago.
This is actually a good argument. Lead with this in future discussions with others, and forget about frickin typos.
I don't have an investment portfolio. The 401k I had at one time got cashed out a while ago. So, are the HFTs saving me money, or making my expenses go up? If they aren't saving me money, and are contributing to higher prices, I have the right to say put a limit on them. Or, if I don't have the right to limit them, what is the SEC for?
Anyhow, thanks for the responses.
The reply you pulled out of your ass after 10 seconds of contemplation is clearly better than anything I might say. But then, I'm not one to hope the people ruining the system take all the wealth and then crash what's left. Hope they leave you a few crumbs, since you seem perfectly content with that outcome. Certainly we don't want to do something radical to stop the abuses we read about.
If people who hold shares for the long term are the winners, it won't matter then if that is mandated, will it? So you're arguing against the rule because...?
All rules are "made up" you big dope. As far as "arbitrary", the post I responded to also had a time limit, but of a different duration. I notice you are absent in jumping up his asshole about it.
In short, add to the discussion with your own suggestion, or go home.
I've said before there should be a year-long requirement on buying or selling. If you buy shares in GM, you own them for at least a year before you can sell them, or use them as any sort of collateral or trade. If you sell shares in Ford, you are not allowed to buy shares in Ford for one year as well. This goes for all investors, whether individual, corporate, or hedge fund.
This would solve the problem of Wall Street being nothing more than a gambling den, but of course it would never come to pass.
Sprint's buying a gas station chain?
Why?
They were going to shoot an arrow into their knee. That always ruins them for that line of work.
No, you would use the AL battery to the Mississippi River, then change it for another one.
Of course, YMMV.
Right. The other AC is saying collect that water, and pipe it into the battery. I'm sure Elon Musk can figure out how to do that.
I've been on MetroPCS since 2006, which is now owned by T-Mobile. So I guess I will be under Sprint soon. If it changes my service for the worse, I will have to switch to one of the independents.
I know that. It just struck me as funny. Since Bloomberg isn't the mayor anymore, why is someone targeting him now?
But overall, I really liked Minwee's post. It was just crazy enough to be believable. ;^)
whistle the correct codes to launch nuclear missiles at Mayor Bloomberg."
You do know that Mr. Bloomberg doesn't get to keep the title forever, right?
I thought all hydrants were dry-barrel. The firemen remove the side caps and connect hoses, then open the valve using the large nut on top of the hydrant. The valve itself is below ground at the water main, connected by a shaft to the nut.
The reason crashing into the hydrant causes the geyser is because the valve is either broken by the impact at the top of its shaft, or the shaft is sheared off and the stopper in the valve is pushed out by water pressure.
That's how it was explained to me anyway. Maybe other systems are different.
You obviously did not read the passage that ebusinessmedia1 linked to.
Go read it, notice it mentions a rebellion after the revolution, and how it mattes that it was contained to only one state.
Then come back and rewrite your argument.
No sane reason other than their own words at the time.
Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, why is this the one Constitutionally protected right that you think only applies to groups and not individuals?
Is freedom of the press only for certified reporters working for incorporated news companies? Are only lawyers secure in their papers, because the rest of the citizenry doesn't have good reason to keep papers secret?
Your argument fails so many logic tests it is a surprise it keeps getting posted. But you guys are persistent when you don't like something that someone else is doing.
They would if they could.