The other person having to convert is irrelevent. Maybe they are collecting bitcoins anyway.
The issue was losing money because of holding bitcoins for three days - something you don't need to do to make a transaction. You for some reason decided that the measures you would probably want to take in that rather unusual case should apply "in order to make a simple payment" which is ridiculous since none of the risks it prevents apply to that at all.
If you are making a payment you don't need to convert back so you only convert dollars to bitcoins and then send the bitcoins to someone in exchange for whatever the payment is for. Hence you don't hold the bitcoins, hence no need to hedge.
No. If you are making a simple payment, then you aren't converting the bitcoins back into dollars so there's no need to hedge anything.
Obviously it would be stupid to convert dollars into bitcoins and then convert them back a few days later. Just as it would to convert dollars into pesos and then convert them back a few days later, or into euros or whatever. Unless you are speculating on price changes of course.
But if you are doing so for some crazy reason, then yes you'd be silly not to work out a way to hedge it (unless if was a small enough amount of money that you don't care either way).
You don't use whatever it was that had a 2 day processing/clearance time but didn't lock the price.
Or a google search says https://www.hellobitcoin.com/faq mentions shorting (of course I know nothing about them and handing money over might be more risky than the risk of bitcoins falling in value).
But why would you do that in the first place? I don't often convert my money to rupees on Friday and back to dollars on Sunday. And if you transferred it back on Friday surely you locked the rate then?
if you are forced to use a such a volatile implement you hedge anyway. Costs very little.
And paypal is not an "ecurrency" it's a transfer (and storage if you are an idiot) mechanism for whatever currencies they happen to support.
No. Government bonds are backed by a promise to honor the debt. Money is just money, if you have a $5 note it will be worth $5 tomorrow and that's all you can say. it might buy half as much stuff tomorrow as today if you happen to be experiencing hyper inflation. The only promise involved is that the government will use its powers of force to make creditors accept that currency for debt payments and that the government itself will accept payments to it in that currency.
There's an expectation that the government won't print obscene amounts of money overnight - though there's no promise that they won't (and many governments have).
There's no need for indexing or backing for a currency. There's a built in limit to money printing so even the normal expectation of not printing obscene amounts is enforced. Bitcoins problems are that the market is thin and hence volatile. However, there's also no reason to expect that governments wouldn't take steps to prevent its use if it did "take off", since they'd very much like to be able to not have limits on their monetary policy options.
Sure, but you are dealing with urban combat in which HARMs aren't really a concern. When you jam GPS you would usually be trying to stop missiles and bombers from getting you - an environment in which HARMs are certainly going to be involved.
If the other side using such missiles against your infantry you are not fighting house to house and room to room anyway. You are still levelling them from the air.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 2
Sure if you want to save the military their next step.
Drive and happiness seem pretty much opposed to me. Not depression obviously which tends to kill drive entirely. But if you are "happy" getting Bs you aren't going to work harder to get As. The idea of "baseline happiness" is that you are stuck with it too, I think anyway. So a better paying job or better results in school will make you happier but only temporarily and soon you'll revert back to the baseline. So those who are the most "naturally unhappy" will have a greater urge to increase their happiness which means continual improvement due to the reversion to baseline. They are also destined to die unhappy since at some point (for most people who don't die young anyway) you'll peak in all the metrics and it's downhill all the way after that...
No. The current situation (well as the author claims it) is that the publisher wants the advance back at which point they'll give her back the rights. Hence the $20k being discusses is for the rights.
If the publisher thought she had they'd be sueing, surely? Espeically considering they seem to want to punish the author.
Seems more likely (without ever having seen the contract or even the "normal" version of one) that they are pissed and using some "right to cancel" clause to say she has to return the advance and they give her back the rights. Or even just deciding to eat the sunk cost and sit on the work for the length of their contract without publishing it - and offering to cancel the deal if she returns the deposit as a separate item.
But it's all guesswork without seeing the contract and communications, which isn't going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
That's copyright infringement, a completely different beast to something being stolen.
The other person having to convert is irrelevent. Maybe they are collecting bitcoins anyway.
The issue was losing money because of holding bitcoins for three days - something you don't need to do to make a transaction. You for some reason decided that the measures you would probably want to take in that rather unusual case should apply "in order to make a simple payment" which is ridiculous since none of the risks it prevents apply to that at all.
Which one of those three items do you find so strange?
If you are making a payment you don't need to convert back so you only convert dollars to bitcoins and then send the bitcoins to someone in exchange for whatever the payment is for. Hence you don't hold the bitcoins, hence no need to hedge.
Because the rest of the state is even worse.
No. If you are making a simple payment, then you aren't converting the bitcoins back into dollars so there's no need to hedge anything.
Obviously it would be stupid to convert dollars into bitcoins and then convert them back a few days later. Just as it would to convert dollars into pesos and then convert them back a few days later, or into euros or whatever. Unless you are speculating on price changes of course.
But if you are doing so for some crazy reason, then yes you'd be silly not to work out a way to hedge it (unless if was a small enough amount of money that you don't care either way).
Given it was one of things I talked about, I suspect your the one with the difficulty of grasping things.
You don't use whatever it was that had a 2 day processing/clearance time but didn't lock the price.
Or a google search says https://www.hellobitcoin.com/faq mentions shorting (of course I know nothing about them and handing money over might be more risky than the risk of bitcoins falling in value).
But why would you do that in the first place? I don't often convert my money to rupees on Friday and back to dollars on Sunday. And if you transferred it back on Friday surely you locked the rate then?
if you are forced to use a such a volatile implement you hedge anyway. Costs very little.
And paypal is not an "ecurrency" it's a transfer (and storage if you are an idiot) mechanism for whatever currencies they happen to support.
No. Government bonds are backed by a promise to honor the debt. Money is just money, if you have a $5 note it will be worth $5 tomorrow and that's all you can say. it might buy half as much stuff tomorrow as today if you happen to be experiencing hyper inflation. The only promise involved is that the government will use its powers of force to make creditors accept that currency for debt payments and that the government itself will accept payments to it in that currency.
There's an expectation that the government won't print obscene amounts of money overnight - though there's no promise that they won't (and many governments have).
There's no need for indexing or backing for a currency. There's a built in limit to money printing so even the normal expectation of not printing obscene amounts is enforced. Bitcoins problems are that the market is thin and hence volatile. However, there's also no reason to expect that governments wouldn't take steps to prevent its use if it did "take off", since they'd very much like to be able to not have limits on their monetary policy options.
Sure, but you are dealing with urban combat in which HARMs aren't really a concern. When you jam GPS you would usually be trying to stop missiles and bombers from getting you - an environment in which HARMs are certainly going to be involved.
If the other side using such missiles against your infantry you are not fighting house to house and room to room anyway. You are still levelling them from the air.
Sure if you want to save the military their next step.
60% is not all, dumbass.
So 25% equals all now? Maybe the mirror would help you find the actual dumbass involved with your post.
She lied. Oh and you aren't wide either...
Drive and happiness seem pretty much opposed to me. Not depression obviously which tends to kill drive entirely. But if you are "happy" getting Bs you aren't going to work harder to get As. The idea of "baseline happiness" is that you are stuck with it too, I think anyway. So a better paying job or better results in school will make you happier but only temporarily and soon you'll revert back to the baseline. So those who are the most "naturally unhappy" will have a greater urge to increase their happiness which means continual improvement due to the reversion to baseline. They are also destined to die unhappy since at some point (for most people who don't die young anyway) you'll peak in all the metrics and it's downhill all the way after that...
Of course, but that's completely irrelevant to the topic at the hand.
But then your detection and timing equipment might be hard to extract the results from.
No. The current situation (well as the author claims it) is that the publisher wants the advance back at which point they'll give her back the rights. Hence the $20k being discusses is for the rights.
Of course I could be misinterpreting...
Very true, but there are a bunch of freelance editors. Of course that means money up front from the author (or some wheeling and dealing).
The rights to the author's work might be worth more than $20k. Especially to the author.
If the publisher thought she had they'd be sueing, surely? Espeically considering they seem to want to punish the author.
Seems more likely (without ever having seen the contract or even the "normal" version of one) that they are pissed and using some "right to cancel" clause to say she has to return the advance and they give her back the rights. Or even just deciding to eat the sunk cost and sit on the work for the length of their contract without publishing it - and offering to cancel the deal if she returns the deposit as a separate item.
But it's all guesswork without seeing the contract and communications, which isn't going to happen.
I'm a jerk then. I warned another adult that they probably don't want to see a movie because it is crap just the other week.
I told my son that if he ate all the candy he got halloween all in a day he'd feel ill and warned him not to. I guess I'm an evil nanny-statist!
The topic isn't about eugenicists and the NWO, it's about a scientist running an experiment to test an hypothesis.