The EFF and Public Knowledge are doubtlessly on the relaxed side of copyright. Also doubtlessly the ASCAP is not in any way relaxed about copyright. In fact, it would seem that the ASCAP is a fervent pro-draconian-copyright troll.
The question isn't weather the EFF and Public Knowledge are radical contra-copyright. The question is who will be radically contra-copyright if the radical pro-copyright trolls force an equal opposition to emerge to their radical pro-copyright views. I've got doubts though that the EFF or Public Knowledge would be polarizable enough in the coming copycalypse. I'd peg them as mid-field. The Pirate Party (I'm a member of the swiss one) seems a much more natural contra pole to the pro-draconian-copyright trolls.
This tax exists, and it applies to participants in the market who're identified as pattern traders (are not holding on to stock more then 5 times a week for less then 24 hours). Their tax is 50% fixed. Not happy with that? Yeah, people like you'd like to have that tax be 99.999% or something I bet.
If you're only halfway serious about trading, you pick a broker with negligible commissions, like 0.008%, and anyway, you don't pay commission on canceled transactions.
Congrats, you've gotten -17% profit (we call that loss) on your Buy&Hold investment. Assuming AT&T doesn't drop any further, you'll have to wait anything between 2 to 4 years to get back to 0%, during which time, AT&T could of course drop further, removing your return to 0% to some very far future indeed. It could also rise, but really, it's just pure gambling at that point. Because if you get out now, you have lost. If the stock drops further, you've lost. If you get out before you're back to 0%, you've lost. You're counting on your luck now to make a profit? Like really? Wouldn't you rather go to vegas or something? Buy&Hold does not generally have a positive expectation for earnings, nor any sufficient risk controls. Of course if you do monitor your stock and get rid of it at an opportune moment, you're not doing Buy&Hold now, are you?
Sorry to thinking to fast for you, but in applying negative interests interest, it helps to think of the drops down from the perspective what's required to get back up.
You're ignoring the teensy tiny "and consequent losses". If Microsoft makes IE insecure, it's not going to cost them any % of their networth overnight. Besides, an automated trading system isn't going to deal with all your risk capital at once, just a tiny percentage, and if that doesn't work out, you're going to adjust it BEFORE you've run out of any money to trade with. Anybody who did it in any other fashion, has gone out of the automated trading business reeeeaaaal quick.
You can just as well put your money in a savings account, dividends (if any at all) pay you in low single digit percentages of what you hold for the most part. However, suppose you made a decision to buy&hold, say, apple stock in December 2007 when it was at 193$ and then saw it drop down to 90$ by December 2008 (and probably no dividends that year). Would you still think that'd have been a good idea? Granted, Apples stock rose again, to eventually surpass your buy-in mark, but that's incidental, you could just as well have bought stock of Alcoa Inc. in May 2008 at 36$, which seems to have dropped down permanently to around 12$. Do you really think that yearly dividends of some say 5%/year would make up for the risk you take that your equity drops 300% overnight and stays there? You'd have to wait a lot of years until you'd have recouped that loss.
Any system that's susceptible can and will be reprogrammed in face of abject failure (and consequent losses) to use multiple independent sources for its input, precisely in order to avoid easy influence taking.
Profit is the very motivation to participate in a market. The principle of a market is to equilibrate supply and demand, and use enlightened self interest to provide liquidity and balance. Automated systems are just better then humans at it (in some respect), get over it.
For instance it can provide liquidity for investors who like to hedge one security with another security (like an option), hence reducing the risk of others. There's many ways in which free-market behavior can be useful, and the very point of a market is to equilibrate demand and supply. Automated trading just does that a lot quicker.
Many participants beat the market all the time, and the market hasn't become reduntant because somebody could profit from it. Quite contrary in fact, if the market can't be used to make a profit, it collapses (as happens for instance, in lack of liquidity or in face of exploding volatility).
This type of trading provides liquidity to markets, and there's no way to differentiate the behavior of an automated bot, a smart trader, or a trader with good tools. Do you want to make markets like a competition in special olympics, you can only participate if you can prove you're crippled?
Any double pendulum obeys deterministic rules, yet its state at any point in time can deviate a lot from any prediction. No matter how deterministic each bot in the market acts, the whole market will always be chaotic, therefore there is always room for a system that's better then another system, and be it just that it has adjusted to the other systems behavior better.
That happens all the time, the market readjusts its behavior recursively to the behavior of anybody else all the time, and quotes of securities over time are a measure of that adjusting going on.
The system's broken in that nitwits like you'd like to fix aspects of it which are actually free markets, instead of stepping on dark-pools and market manipulation like you should.
What you fail to realize is that many deterministic stupid automated trading systems are heaven for a patient trader who can set his stops and limits correctly, he'll just have to wait for the systems to screw up collectively.
Any security isn't meant to be anything but what the market thinks it is. Any security is subject to movement, which may include up and down, otherwise it'd be pointless to have a "market". Trading isn't Gambling. If anything, buy&hold is gambling like nothing else, because it subjects itself to the arbitary passage of time in the blind (sometimes unfounded) hope a security will rise. Buy&Hold is the ultimate form of gambling, trading is just applying risk mitigating strategies (such as getting out, like, at all) and common sense. Funny how the Buy&Hold suicide investors always like to paint common sense approaches to risk management as "gambling".
Automated systems provide more liquidity to the market, which is good. Also, there's no distinction between an "augmented" human, using a sophisticated program, and a fully automated algorithm, it's a gradient. Telling participants that they can't use automated systems, would be like making market competition the special Olympics, you're only allowed to compete if you can prove you're crippled.
Wrong. You could numerous identical incarnations of this system (or more realistically) numerous differently programmed automated trading systems, and have no humans at all, and one or another algorithm would still win, because it was better then the other algorithms.
The amazing thing about people like Simonetta is that even tough they bemoan the exorbitant cost of space activities from earth, they don't consider that we could do it a lot cheaper (and environmentally friendlier) if we had the will for some up-front investment to do it right.
And somehow they also always go for the fallacy that there's "nothing on the moon". It's such a patently absurd statement, like the moon was made of nothing, a shiny disk made of cardboard, or what have you. The moon's rich in oxygen, iron, titanium, helium, hydrogen, natrium, calcium and magnesium and silicium. But somehow that is "nothing", yeah right, "nothing" indeed.
The next fallacy they inevitably go for is that whatever you do there, it cannot be possibly of value to earth. Like the whole commercial satellite industry had no value, or like that's just a phase, and the thousands of active satellites orbiting earth where some kind of statistical fluke.
sure you can get a lot more robots for the resources you need to build a smelter and production line. But every one of your hundreds of robots is going to break down sooner or later, and you're left with nothing of value. If you want to make this a value proposition, you need to have a chance of return of investment, and you only have that if you can avoid shipping everything you'll ever need in the future to the moon.
You're delusional. There is a space industry, it's doing well, offsetting about a trillion dollars a year rendering space services to build and maintain an ever growing fleet of commercial satellites. Government spending on space programs is still a market, despite what you might think, somebody is selling the government what they need to do it (currently mostly the russians and the ESA).
There is the whole moon, on the moon, chockfull of building material you might need, and even hydrogen for fuel. Ohyeah, and no environmental laws about anything, either.
Now spending trillions of dollars a year to maintain a service we could render at a fraction of the cost from the moon, *that* is true lunacy. For the budget of half a year of global space spending, we could install an industrial complex on the moon that could render better, cheaper and more reliable services we are currently providing from earth with exorbitant cost, risk and restrictions.
You'll have to excuse my [sigh], but you're falling into the same trap as most, but you're so close to realizing it, yet fail to make the leap.
Launching things off earth is not very economical. Why do we do it? We do it because there are good reasons to do it (satellite industry and scientific endeavors). If you combine all commercially rendered space services, and then also add all the funding scientific missions get, you're at a multi trillion market a year.
Building an industrial complex on the moon doesn't help you lift things off earth. What it does do is let you launch things off the moon, into earth orbit and elsewhere, quite easily.
If you can build and launch things off the moon, you can suddenly offer a service that is worth trillions a year in Earth dollars, at a marginal cost. Yes, there is an up-front investment to make it happen. Yes that investment is rather large. But how long do you think you'll need to recover say a 500 billion investment if you can serve a multi trillion a year market and be able to underbid anybody else?
Slashdot Mirror
The EFF and Public Knowledge are doubtlessly on the relaxed side of copyright. Also doubtlessly the ASCAP is not in any way relaxed about copyright. In fact, it would seem that the ASCAP is a fervent pro-draconian-copyright troll.
The question isn't weather the EFF and Public Knowledge are radical contra-copyright. The question is who will be radically contra-copyright if the radical pro-copyright trolls force an equal opposition to emerge to their radical pro-copyright views. I've got doubts though that the EFF or Public Knowledge would be polarizable enough in the coming copycalypse. I'd peg them as mid-field. The Pirate Party (I'm a member of the swiss one) seems a much more natural contra pole to the pro-draconian-copyright trolls.
This tax exists, and it applies to participants in the market who're identified as pattern traders (are not holding on to stock more then 5 times a week for less then 24 hours). Their tax is 50% fixed. Not happy with that? Yeah, people like you'd like to have that tax be 99.999% or something I bet.
I looooove high volatility + CFDs where you can specify the lever yourself.
If you're only halfway serious about trading, you pick a broker with negligible commissions, like 0.008%, and anyway, you don't pay commission on canceled transactions.
You can look at it yourself.
2007: 42$, +2.94$ dividend
2008: 28$, +1.96$ dividend -14$ share drop
2009: 28$, +1.96$ dividend
Congrats, you've gotten -17% profit (we call that loss) on your Buy&Hold investment. Assuming AT&T doesn't drop any further, you'll have to wait anything between 2 to 4 years to get back to 0%, during which time, AT&T could of course drop further, removing your return to 0% to some very far future indeed. It could also rise, but really, it's just pure gambling at that point. Because if you get out now, you have lost. If the stock drops further, you've lost. If you get out before you're back to 0%, you've lost. You're counting on your luck now to make a profit? Like really? Wouldn't you rather go to vegas or something? Buy&Hold does not generally have a positive expectation for earnings, nor any sufficient risk controls. Of course if you do monitor your stock and get rid of it at an opportune moment, you're not doing Buy&Hold now, are you?
Sorry to thinking to fast for you, but in applying negative interests interest, it helps to think of the drops down from the perspective what's required to get back up.
You're ignoring the teensy tiny "and consequent losses". If Microsoft makes IE insecure, it's not going to cost them any % of their networth overnight. Besides, an automated trading system isn't going to deal with all your risk capital at once, just a tiny percentage, and if that doesn't work out, you're going to adjust it BEFORE you've run out of any money to trade with. Anybody who did it in any other fashion, has gone out of the automated trading business reeeeaaaal quick.
You can just as well put your money in a savings account, dividends (if any at all) pay you in low single digit percentages of what you hold for the most part. However, suppose you made a decision to buy&hold, say, apple stock in December 2007 when it was at 193$ and then saw it drop down to 90$ by December 2008 (and probably no dividends that year). Would you still think that'd have been a good idea? Granted, Apples stock rose again, to eventually surpass your buy-in mark, but that's incidental, you could just as well have bought stock of Alcoa Inc. in May 2008 at 36$, which seems to have dropped down permanently to around 12$. Do you really think that yearly dividends of some say 5%/year would make up for the risk you take that your equity drops 300% overnight and stays there? You'd have to wait a lot of years until you'd have recouped that loss.
Any system that's susceptible can and will be reprogrammed in face of abject failure (and consequent losses) to use multiple independent sources for its input, precisely in order to avoid easy influence taking.
Profit is the very motivation to participate in a market. The principle of a market is to equilibrate supply and demand, and use enlightened self interest to provide liquidity and balance. Automated systems are just better then humans at it (in some respect), get over it.
For instance it can provide liquidity for investors who like to hedge one security with another security (like an option), hence reducing the risk of others. There's many ways in which free-market behavior can be useful, and the very point of a market is to equilibrate demand and supply. Automated trading just does that a lot quicker.
Many participants beat the market all the time, and the market hasn't become reduntant because somebody could profit from it. Quite contrary in fact, if the market can't be used to make a profit, it collapses (as happens for instance, in lack of liquidity or in face of exploding volatility).
This type of trading provides liquidity to markets, and there's no way to differentiate the behavior of an automated bot, a smart trader, or a trader with good tools. Do you want to make markets like a competition in special olympics, you can only participate if you can prove you're crippled?
Any double pendulum obeys deterministic rules, yet its state at any point in time can deviate a lot from any prediction. No matter how deterministic each bot in the market acts, the whole market will always be chaotic, therefore there is always room for a system that's better then another system, and be it just that it has adjusted to the other systems behavior better.
That happens all the time, the market readjusts its behavior recursively to the behavior of anybody else all the time, and quotes of securities over time are a measure of that adjusting going on.
The system's broken in that nitwits like you'd like to fix aspects of it which are actually free markets, instead of stepping on dark-pools and market manipulation like you should.
What you fail to realize is that many deterministic stupid automated trading systems are heaven for a patient trader who can set his stops and limits correctly, he'll just have to wait for the systems to screw up collectively.
Any security isn't meant to be anything but what the market thinks it is. Any security is subject to movement, which may include up and down, otherwise it'd be pointless to have a "market". Trading isn't Gambling. If anything, buy&hold is gambling like nothing else, because it subjects itself to the arbitary passage of time in the blind (sometimes unfounded) hope a security will rise. Buy&Hold is the ultimate form of gambling, trading is just applying risk mitigating strategies (such as getting out, like, at all) and common sense. Funny how the Buy&Hold suicide investors always like to paint common sense approaches to risk management as "gambling".
Automated systems provide more liquidity to the market, which is good. Also, there's no distinction between an "augmented" human, using a sophisticated program, and a fully automated algorithm, it's a gradient. Telling participants that they can't use automated systems, would be like making market competition the special Olympics, you're only allowed to compete if you can prove you're crippled.
Wrong. You could numerous identical incarnations of this system (or more realistically) numerous differently programmed automated trading systems, and have no humans at all, and one or another algorithm would still win, because it was better then the other algorithms.
The amazing thing about people like Simonetta is that even tough they bemoan the exorbitant cost of space activities from earth, they don't consider that we could do it a lot cheaper (and environmentally friendlier) if we had the will for some up-front investment to do it right.
And somehow they also always go for the fallacy that there's "nothing on the moon". It's such a patently absurd statement, like the moon was made of nothing, a shiny disk made of cardboard, or what have you. The moon's rich in oxygen, iron, titanium, helium, hydrogen, natrium, calcium and magnesium and silicium. But somehow that is "nothing", yeah right, "nothing" indeed.
The next fallacy they inevitably go for is that whatever you do there, it cannot be possibly of value to earth. Like the whole commercial satellite industry had no value, or like that's just a phase, and the thousands of active satellites orbiting earth where some kind of statistical fluke.
sure you can get a lot more robots for the resources you need to build a smelter and production line. But every one of your hundreds of robots is going to break down sooner or later, and you're left with nothing of value. If you want to make this a value proposition, you need to have a chance of return of investment, and you only have that if you can avoid shipping everything you'll ever need in the future to the moon.
I think you'll need a base if you want to have a smelter for ores, a solar oven and a production line for parts.
You're delusional. There is a space industry, it's doing well, offsetting about a trillion dollars a year rendering space services to build and maintain an ever growing fleet of commercial satellites. Government spending on space programs is still a market, despite what you might think, somebody is selling the government what they need to do it (currently mostly the russians and the ESA).
There is the whole moon, on the moon, chockfull of building material you might need, and even hydrogen for fuel. Ohyeah, and no environmental laws about anything, either.
Now spending trillions of dollars a year to maintain a service we could render at a fraction of the cost from the moon, *that* is true lunacy. For the budget of half a year of global space spending, we could install an industrial complex on the moon that could render better, cheaper and more reliable services we are currently providing from earth with exorbitant cost, risk and restrictions.
You'll have to excuse my [sigh], but you're falling into the same trap as most, but you're so close to realizing it, yet fail to make the leap.
Launching things off earth is not very economical. Why do we do it? We do it because there are good reasons to do it (satellite industry and scientific endeavors). If you combine all commercially rendered space services, and then also add all the funding scientific missions get, you're at a multi trillion market a year.
Building an industrial complex on the moon doesn't help you lift things off earth. What it does do is let you launch things off the moon, into earth orbit and elsewhere, quite easily.
If you can build and launch things off the moon, you can suddenly offer a service that is worth trillions a year in Earth dollars, at a marginal cost. Yes, there is an up-front investment to make it happen. Yes that investment is rather large. But how long do you think you'll need to recover say a 500 billion investment if you can serve a multi trillion a year market and be able to underbid anybody else?